Commons Sitting of 28 April 1862

MINUTES.
NEW WEITS ISSUED.—For Lambeth, V. William Roupell, esquire, Manor of Hemp-holme; for Oldham, v. William Johnson Fox, esquire, Manor of Northstead. PUBLIC BILL—3° Charitable Uses Act (1861) Amendment.
FORTIFICATIONS AT PLYMOUTH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that an artificial island is being constructed in Plymouth Sound by sinking stones, for the purpose of building on it a fort similar to those which are under construction at Spithead?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISreplied, that it was intended to construct a fort behind the breakwater, not upon it, as originally designed. The foundation was not in the nature of a breakwater, consisting of stones thrown down, but there were walls which would be nearly perpendicular, and the plan of the fort was in accordance with the recommendations of the Defence Commission.

THE INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, it would be for the convenience of the House, if some member of the Government would state whether or not it is intended that the House shall sit on Thursday,
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it was intended that the House should sit on Thursday, but not at the usual hour. He believed the time of the opening of the Exhibition had not yet been fixed. If it should be at one o'clock, which he believed would be the case, the House would meet at six. But to-morrow notice would be given for a Motion for Wednesday to fix the time at which the House might meet on Thursday.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.

  SECOND READING DEFERRED.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should be glad to know how the matter stood, as he wished to be guided in taking the second reading of the Bill by the convenience of the House. Due notice had been given of the second reading of the Bill, and no notice or intimation appeared of any intention to question the Bill in that stage; but he had received intimation that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire was under the impression that Supply would come on, and that the Bill would not be taken that evening. So far as the collection of the revenue was concerned, it would, no doubt, be convenient that the

  973
  Bill should go forward with despatch; but there was no such urgency as to render it necessary to pass the second reading then if it were inconvenient to the House, or if any misunderstanding existed on the subject. Perhaps the right hon. Baronet opposite could inform him how the matter stood.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he believed he could state what was the impression on the mind of his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire. He find some conversation with his right hon. Friend on Saturday; and though there was not the slightest intention on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to throw any impediment in the way of the second reading of the Bill, it had been his intention to offer some remarks on the general financial position of affairs, and he (Sir S. Northcote) had himself intended to make other remarks, partly having reference to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Manchester last week, That morning he had heard from the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire that he hail been informed by the noble Viscount the First Minister of the Crown that it was not intended to proceed with the Bill that night; and the right hon. Gentleman was, at that moment, he believed, dining with the Lord Mayor. There would not be the slightest intention of opposing the passing of the Bill; and if the Government thought it desirable to proceed with it to-night, he was quite sure, speaking as far as he was en titled to do for his right hon. Friend, there would be no objection to that course.
  MR. SPEAKER: This conversation cannot go on. There is no question before the House.
  MAJOR EDWARDSwished to know whether Committees would sit on Thursday.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought it would probably be for the convenience of Members serving on Committees that they should not meet on Thursday.
  MR. BASSsaid, he wished to express a hope that before proceeding with the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would obtain that information which was so necessary with regard to the stock of hops on which he would have to pay drawback.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would postpone the second reading of the Bill till Thursday next.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."

THE RESERVED FUND.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL PEEL: In the notice which I gave of my intention to ask the Secretary for War, if any decision had been arrived at in regard to the Reserved, Fund, I purposely reminded the House that its attention had been specially called to this fund, in the Report of the Committee on Military Organization; and, I did so, in the hope that hon. Members would refer to the report and the evidence on which it was founded, for the purpose of obtaining some information about it. On looking at it, however, I do not think that either the Report or the evidence conveys a sufficiently strong impression of the importance of this fund as affecting the system of purchase in the army. The Committee express no opinion of their own as to the propriety of continuing this fund, they leave it entirely to the decision of the House. They quote the opinion of the then Secretary for War, Mr. Herbert; but as there may be many Members who have not read the Report, and others who having read it may have forgotten it, I will take the liberty of reading three short paragraphs from page 12 of the Report.
  "The Secretary of State contends, that in practice this fund is of eminent advantage both to the army and to the public. He argues, that it stimulates promotion, and relieves the dead weight without any charge to the public. He admits, however, that Parliament, in the strict sense, is not cognizant of the existence of this fund: it is not voted; no account is rendered; no constitutional checks are imposed; the Secretary of State may apply it to any purpose he thinks fit; and Mr. Herbert says "that in principle there is no doubt the existence of this fund is wrong." Your Committee have endeavoured to discharge their duty by calling the attention of the House of: Commons especially to this subject, It will be for the House to determine whether a large sum of money, raised by the sale of the commissions, shall be applied even to useful purposes at the: present moment, without Parliamentary sanction or direct Parliamentary knowledge. If this Reserve Fund be permitted to continue for the sake of the useful purposes to which it may be applied, at least an account of the receipt and expenditure should be laid before Parliament every year, when the Army Estimates are presented; and this account should be submitted year by year to an independent official audit."
  Of this I think there can be no doubt, but ! the question still remains —Shall this

  975
  fund be continued? Are the purposes to which it is applied so useful as to justify the continuance of a fund, which its warmest advocate admits to be wrong in principle? I think the objections to the principle may be obviated by the adoption of the recommendations of the Committee. I do not object to the existence of the fund, or to the purposes to which it has been applied; my objection, and it is a very strong one, is to the manner in which the fund is raised. There is very little in the evidence taken before this Committee to show how this fund originated, or to what purposes, until recently, it has been applied. A much fuller account of it is given in the evidence taken before the Royal Commission on the system of Purchase and Sale of Commissions, that sat in the year 1856–7. From that it appears, that up to the year 1825, his Royal Highness the Duke of York, who was then Commander-in Chief, and it is believed his predecessor, Sir David Dundas, was in the habit of occasionally directing an Ensigncy to be sold, for the purpose of making a charitable donation to the widows and orphans of officers who had died in the service. If the amount given was less than that produced by the sale of the commission, the balance was paid to a small fund entirely under the direction of the Commander-in-Chief. He gave no account of it to anybody, and it was used solely for charitable purposes. In the year 1825 another fund was created. In consequence of the great reduction that had taken place in the army after the peace in 1815, the half-pay list, or dead weight, was exceedingly heavy, and there had been great stagnation in the promotions in the army, in consequence of officers being brought in from the half-pay list, when opportunities occurred of doing so. It was, therefore, decided to permit the officers on half-pay who wished to retire from the service to do so; receiving a commuted allowance for their half-pay. This was effected by selling their half-pay commissions; and the difference between the sums paid to the officers as commuted allowance, and that produced by the sale of their commissions, amounted to £80,000. This is the first occasion on which the Government derived any apparent advantage from the sale of commissions. I say apparent, because the officers who purchased these half-pay commissions were so much younger than the officers who retired that it was substituting younger
  976
  lives for the half-pay annuity; and in the following year, 1826, the sale of half-pay commissions was put an end to, and the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, who was then temporarily Commander-in-Chief —it may not be known to many Members that, amongst the numerous offices which the noble Lord has filled with so much credit to himself and advantage to the public is that of Commander-in-Chief— directed that this sum of £80,000 should be paid over to the Treasury, and it was placed to the credit of the Consolidated Fund. Lord Hardinge, when Secretary at War, made many attempts to recover this sum from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to make use of it for army purposes. But we all know the difficulty of recovering money from a Chancellor of the Exchequer. You might as well attempt to get back the taxes you paid last-year; and, of course, Lord Hardinge failed. The money was appropriated to the public service, and there was an end of that fund and the system by which it was created. A new plan was adopted with regard to the half-pay officers, and those who were permitted to retire were brought upon full pay, when clear vacancies occurred, and sold the full-pay commission. If they had received the difference on going upon half-pay, they were called upon to repay it; and these repayments formed a fund which was under the control of the Commander-in-Chief, and was employed in cancelling half-pay. It never could have been of any great amount, because in 1841, when Lord Hardinge (more fortunate in rescuing the fund from the Commander-in-Chief than he had been from the Chancellor of the Exchequer) directed that it should be paid over to the Paymaster General of the Forces, it only amounted to £3,090. In 1851 Lord Panmure, then Secretary at War, took possession of the Fund, and it has remained ever since under the control of the Secretary at War or Secretary for War, both offices being held by the same individual. A far more extended operation, however, has been given to this fund —an extension by no means to be measured by the amount of £160,000 which it had arrived at when the Committee inquired into it, because that only represents the difference between the sums paid to officers who have retired and the amount produced by the sale of their commissions, a difference which varies in every instance, according to the length of the services of the officer who retires. A

  977
  practice has sprung up of giving to officers who have not purchased their commissions, an allowance of £100 a year for their services, provided the sum given in no instance exceeds the price of the commission they hold. The commission is sold; and if the officer's services do not entitle him to the whole amount, the balance is paid over to the fund: for instance, if a captain of twelve years' service retires, his commission is sold for £1,800, he receives £1,200, and the remaining £600 goes to the fund, When this practice commenced, or by whom it was originated, nobody appears to know. It appears to me to have been the very ingenious suggestion of some civil officer of the War Department for the purpose of raising this fund, for on no other grounds can it be accounted for. His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, when examined before the Committee, said, he could not conceive why it was given. His answer would imply even something more for the Chairman, Sir James Graham, says—
  Q. 3920. "Your Royal Highness, from the answer which you have just given, would raise a doubt whether that gift of £100 a year is founded in equity, or not?—A. I never could understand why it was given."
  By the regulations of the service, which have been in force since the reign of Queen Anne, and are founded on an Act of Parliament, an officer who has not purchased is not entitled to sell his commission until he has served twenty years, or to go upon half-pay until he has served twenty-six years. This practice of giving £100 a year entirely overrules the Act of Parliament, because an ensign of four and a half years' or a lieutenant of six and a half years' service, may retire and receive the whole price of his commission.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, who had himself been Secretary at War, and knew more of the regulations of the service than anybody, remarked—
  Q. 4007. "But, it is now clearly only a matter of indulgence to the officer, arid he has no right to this allowance on retirement" —A. (Duke of Cambridge:) "I think, that if an officer had not misconducted himself, and did not get it, he would consider that he was an injured man; I should consider that he had as much right to it as that"
  The Secretary for War, Lord Herbert, acknowledged the right in still stronger terms, for in answer to a remark of mine—
  Q. 6800. "But every officer you compel to purchase, will afterwards have the power of selling, will he not?"
  He says—
  "And so also will officers who do not purchase."
  978
  Q. 6801. "Not until after a certain number of years' service? —A. Yes, they may sell, and get a hundred pounds for each year they have served."
  The right, however, is clearly recognised by a general order from the Horse Guards issued in the course of the present year, to which I shall allude presently; and if the practice is to be discontinued, it will be necessary to give notice to those who may consider themselves entitled to this allowance. Now, let me call the attention of the House to the very unfair distinction that this creates between the officer who has purchased his commission and the one who has obtained it without purchase. This is shown by the questions put by the Chairman to His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, from Question 3894 to Question 3905; but as the result is summed up in the latter, it will only be necessary for me to read the first and last—
  "I will take the case of an ensign serving for four years, who bought his commission, and the case of an ensign to whom a commission was given, also serving for tour years; their qualifications and services being exactly the same. The difference therefore is, that the one officer who has purchased his commission receives only £72 a year for his four years' service, and the officer to whom a commission is given, receives £190 a year?—Certainly, there is no doubt of that."
  "That is the accurate state of the account between the two?—Yes; that is the practical working of that system."
  Bad as this makes the case appear for the purchasing officer, I deny that it is an accurate statement of it; because in the calculation by which this result is arrived at, there is only deducted interest at the rate of 4 per cent on the amount vested in the purchase of the commission; but it must be recollected that the officer is risking the capital all the time. If he were to die, the money would be lost to his family; and a further deduction, therefore, ought to be made, of whatever would be required to insure his life for an amount equal to the price of his commission; and this would reduce his receipts to less than one third of those of the non-purchasing officer. It appear, therefore, that this fund is raised by the sale of commissions contrary to the regulations of the service, in order to carry out a practice, the effect of which is to create a very unfair distinction between officers who have purchased, and those who have not. Now, let us look at the purposes to which the fund has been applied. One has been to reduce the regulation price of cavalry commissions to that of infantry, and it is effected by paying to the cavalry officer,

  979
  on his retirement, the difference between the old and new prices out of the fund; but unless you can reduce, not the regulation price, but the actual or selling price, the only effect of this will be, to put into the pocket of the cavalry officers a sum of money raised at the expense of infantry officers, for I will venture to say that 99 per cent of this fund has been raised by the sale of infantry commissions, the holders of which ought to have obtained them, or at all events, might have obtained them without purchase. If the cavalry officer can still obtain the sum of £4,000 or £5,000 for the troop which has only cost him £1,800, instead of the old regulation price of £3,225, it is evident that you are giving him a great advantage at the expense of the fund. The value of his commission, like everything else for sale, is not what was given for it, but what it will fetch. Now, I freely admit that the reduction of the price for cornetcies from £850 to £450 had a very beneficial effect, and enabled you to fill up the numerous cornetcies that were vacant. Officers were induced to purchase at the lower price, and a first commission is never sold for more than the regulation price, because nobody knows who will be appointed to it; and therefore no bargain can be made for it; but if these cornets are obliged to pay the old selling prices for their lieutenancies and troops, they will be no gainers in the end—they will have to pay for these so much more than the regulation. Now, that more than the regulation is paid is matter of notoriety. The Royal Commission, at page 21 of their Report, say—
  "The practice, therefore, of paying sums exceeding the regulation price must be considered to be an accompaniment of the purchase system, which it appears impossible to prevent."
  And at page 23—
  "The regulation price of commissions is a fiction, and the large sums which officers are compelled to pay for promotion aggravate the evil effects of the system."
  But if a more recent proof be required, it is furnished by the evidence taken before that extraordinary Court Martial that has recently been held in Dublin. It appears in that evidence that the senior lieutenant was not for purchase—that is, he was not prepared to give that price beyond the regulation without which nobody would sell; but no sooner did it appear probable that a captain would be compelled to send in his papers and sell his
  980
  commission for the regulation price, than he instantly returned his name for purchase, and thus put an end to the arrangements made by the senior purchasing lieutenant. It is clear, therefore, that the selling price of cavalry commissions is not yet reduced. Another purpose to which this fund has been applied is that of purchasing up the commissions in the corps of Gentlemen at Arms and Yeomen of the Guard. These are no longer to be purchasing corps; and the appointments, for the future, are to be given to half-pay officers. A third purpose, and one by which the country is more directly the gainer, has been that of purchasing half-pay commissions, by which, I understand, a saving of £8,000 a year has been made.
  Now, I think my noble Friend, Lord Herbert, having this £160,000 to dispose of, did very wisely in getting rid of it by these means. There was the Report of the Committee hanging over it, and the precedent of its being transferred to the Treasury, and the sooner he made use of it for army purposes the better; but if he had not had the fund in hand, I do not think he would have been justified in selling a single commission to carry out any one of these purposes. I do not see why an infantry commission should be sold to pay a cavalry officer, or why the system of purchase in the army should be extended in order to put an end to it in the corps of Gentlemen at Arms and Yeomen of the Guard. There are, besides, conditions attached to the appointments to these corps, which deprive many officers of any chance of obtaining them. A subaltern officer is not eligible, and then every candidate must be so many feet so many inches high. A little hero (and there are many of them) has no chance. As to purchasing up half-pay commissions, I consider you have no right whatever to sell a commission for the purpose of doing so. The practice of giving £100 a year to officers who have not purchased has extended the system of purchase to every commission in purchasing regiments. If an officer has purchased, he has a right, or, at all events, a strong claim, to sell; if he has not purchased, his commission is sold to pay him the £100 a year. When the Government became dealers in commissions, and sold those that were not naturally for sale, as in the case of first appointments in 1854, and the commissions of the officers who had not purchased. The system of purchases was extended, as I have shown, to

  981
  every commission. This was not only not denied, but was defended by the Secretary for War (Mr. Herbert). He was asked by the hon. and gallant General the Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans), Q, 6,804, whether the practice of giving £100 a year to the non-purchasing officers did not extend the system of purchase; and he answered, "Not the system, but the action of the system." And in answer to Q. 6,802, he stated it as his opinion, that as long as you have the system of purchase, you should make the most of it. As long as officers buy, others must sell.
  Why, this is what the officers themselves say who sell their commissions for more than the regulation. As long us the sys tern of purchase exists, make the most of it; buy in the cheapest market, sell in the dearest; or, better still, do not buy at all, and sell in the dearest; for every one of these commissions that have not been purchased are just as liable to be sold for more than the regulation as the commissions of the officers who have purchased. The officer who is going to retire knows who is the senior officer for purchase, and may say to him, "I will retire if can get so much money. I shall only receive so much for my services, and unless you make up the difference, I will remain." Now, I have always taken a different view of this question. I am not an advocate of the abolition of the purchase system, and I do not think it would be practicable, even if it was desirable; but I am totally opposed to the Government becoming a party to it. I do not deny that the operation of this fund has had the effect of stimulating promotion, but amongst those only who have the means of purchasing, to the total exclusion of those who have not, or that it has had the effect of relieving the dead weight, when applied to cancelling half-pay; but these officers who retire and get the allowance of £100 a year are not entitled to go upon half-pay. If it is thought that their services have entitled them to some allowance, the country, to whom those services have been rendered, ought to pay it, and not to throw the burden upon others. It is wonderful how generous we are at other people's expense, we give these officers an allowance of £100 a year for their services, but we make the purchasing officer pay it, and put something very handsome besides into our own pockets. It is exactly the same system as that adopted at Woolwich and Sandhurst.
  982
  We generously educate a certain number of orphans, sons of officers, free of all expense, and the sons of all officers at less than the absolute cost; but then we make the other cadets pay for it by charging them more than the actual cost. So long as this fund was used for only charitable purposes, to give to those who were dependent upon officers who had died in your service, but had themselves no claim upon the public purse, I do not think there would be any objection to a limited application of it, or that anybody would grudge having to purchase for such a purpose, but when it is raised for the purpose of relieving the public at the expense of individuals, it is Unite a different thing. A circumstance has occurred since the Committee reported, which renders the continuance of this allowance of £100 a year more objectionable than ever. Twelve non-purchasing regiments have been added to the British Army by the amalgamation with the Indian Army. Now, what do you intend to do with the officers who will hereafter be appointed to these regiments? Do you intend to give them this allowance or not? A general order has been issued from the Horse Guards which, in my opinion, leaves this very doubtful; but the right to the allowance of £100 a year in purchasing regiments is so clearly recognised (except in the case of misconduct), that so long as that order remains uncancelled any officer entering the service may fairly claim it. The order is—
  "GENERAL ORDER, "No. 807.
  "Horse Guards, S.W., 19th February, 1862.
  "With regard to the addition of twelve non-purchase Regiments of the Line to the British Army, His Royal Highness the General Commanding-in-Chief is pleased, with the concurrence of the Right Honourable the Secretaries of State for War and for India, to establish the following regulations:—
  "1. In non-purchase Corps of the Line, no Officers can sell their Commissions.
  "Those who enter from the Indian service retain their claim to Indian pension, and all others are entitled, with Her Majesty's approval, to retire on full or half-pay, according to the terms of Her Majesty's Warrants of the 14th October, 1858, and 28th March, 1861.
  "2. An officer joining a purchase Regiment from the Indian Service will be placed on the same footing in all respects with the rest of the officers of tint Regiment.
  "Having forfeited all claim to Indian pension, he will become entitled to retire on full pay or half-pay, under the Warrants above specified.
  "Non-purchase Officers of such Regiments have the privilege of receiving, subject to the consent in each case of the General Commanding-in-Chief, and of the Secretary of State for War (which is

  983
  liable to be withheld if the retirement results from misconduct), an allowance, on retirement, of £100 for each year's service, whether in the British or Indian Army, provided the total amount does not exceed the price of the Commission resigned.—By Order of H. R. H. The General Commanding-in-Chief." "JAMES YORKE SCARLMTT, Adj. Gen."
  I was informed at the War Office where these orders are interpreted, that it was not intended to give the allowance to officers in those regiments. Now take the case of two cadets, both obtaining their Commissions by competitive examination at Sandhurst, one appointed to a purchasing regiment in this country, the other to one of these non-purchasing regiments, which is quite a matter of accident depending upon the vacancies at the time. If, at the end of six or seven years, they should both wish to retire on account of ill health, or any other cause, do you give to the officer who may have been at home the whole time £100 a year for his services, and give the officer who may have seen active service in India, nothing? Surely, this would be a great hardship, and yet I do not see how you could give him anything without committing an equal injustice. You cannot sell his commission, because he is in a non-purchasing regiment; and if you bring him into a purchasing regiment on a clear vacancy, arid sell his commission, you are committing a great injustice towards the officer in that regiment who would have obtained his promotion without purchase. This system of selling commissions in order to pay this allowance of £100ayear for services must materially affect the number of. commissions to be given without purchase. I do not know upon what basis the calculation was made that enabled the Secretary for War to that that there would be 230 commissions to be given away annually, of which 170 were to competed for at Sandhurst; but. I am sure, that if this practice continues, there will be nothing near that number. You will not be able to keep faith with the young men whom you have induced to go to Sandhurst on the understanding that there are to be 170 commissions to be competed for every year. On the other hand, if this practice is abolished, there will be more commissions to give away, and the system of purchase will be materially diminished. I think I have said quite enough to show the importance of this subject, as bearing on the purchase system. If you do away with the practice of giving the non-purchasing officer retiring from the service £100 a year for his services, he
  984
  will, of course, be placed in a worse position than he is in at present; but why he was ever placed in that position, except for the purpose of benefiting the fund, I am equally at a loss with His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief to conceive. It is not a reward for length of service, for the Ensign of four and a half years' service gets just as much as the one of eight or nine, and the Lieutenant of six and a half years' service as much as the one of fourteen or fifteen. So far from its being a reward for long service, it is an inducement to the officer to retire as soon as he has served long enough to entitle him to the price of his commission, because he can gain nothing more by serving in that rank. It is exactly contrary to the principle you adopt with regard to the men. You cannot enlist a man to serve for more than ten years; but at the expiration of that time you do all in your power to induce him to remain. You offer him a new bounty and kit, and he becomes entitled to a pension at the end of the second term of service. But instead of encouraging the officer to remain until he is entitled, by the regulations of the service, to sell his commission or to go upon half-pay, you bribe him, by this allowance, to retire. It is not given for distinguished or good service, for the nature of the service has nothing to do with it. The officer who may have been at home all the time is as much entitled to it as the one who may have seen the most active and arduous service. It is sacrificing the interests of the non-purchasing officer who wishes to remain in your service, for that of the one who retires from it; because the former is instantly purchased over to provide for the latter. This allowance is not given to the officers of the Engineers, Artillery, Marines, or the twelve new regiments; and yet the services of officers in these corps may have been quite equal to that of those who receive it. If it is given as an acknowledgment on the part of the Government that the officers have been miserably underpaid during the time they were serving, I am afraid I could not deny the justice of it; but then it would be surely better to give them an additional £50 a year when they are serving, which would induce them to remain, than to give them £100 a year when they leave. My attention was not drawn to this fund during the time I was Secretary for War, or I am sure I should have proposed some alteration in the working of it. I do not wish to see

  985
  the fund abolished, and should be very sorry if the Commander-in-Chief was deprived of the power of providing for a meritorious officer, who had risen from the ranks, or one who had performed distinguished service; but, I object to that being made the rule which ought to be an exception, for which reasons ought always to be; given, and the sanction of the Secretary for War obtained for it. Unless the Secretary for War has fully and duly considered the subject, and is prepared to give a decisive answer, I have no wish to press for one now. I shall be quite satisfied by his saying that he will take into consideration what I have stated; at the same time, I must remind him, that it is now nearly two years since the Committee reported, and that the only thing that has been done has been to confirm the practice, by the recognition of it in an order from the Horse Guards.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Sir, there are two questions to be considered with reference to this fund—one is the mode in which it is created, and the other the mode in which it is appropriated. The point which principally attracted the notice of the Committee upon military organization, and to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has especially called attention, is the existence of the fund and its appropriation. Undoubtedly, as he has correctly stated, grave constitutional objections may be urged against the existence of a fund not voted by Parliament, but arising from the sale of commissions, and subject to the discretion of the Executive Government. It is to that part of the case that my attention has been principally directed. An account was, for the first time I believe, laid upon the table last Session, showing how the fund had been appropriated, and the balance in the hands of the Government; and a similar account will be shortly laid upon the table, and will exhibit the annual statement since the last account was presented. With regard to the question of an independent audit, which was adverted to in the Report of the Committee, it is clear that this fund could not be audited by the Commissioners of Audit; but I should he quite ready to assent to any mode of auditing it which may be likely to meet with the approbation of this House. Considering the purposes to which the fund is applicable, as stated at the foot of the return on the table, it appeared to me that these purposes are generally advantageous, and I think the right hon. and gallant Gen-
  986
  tleman himself did not materially except to the manner in which the fund is appropriated. He stated the whole case with great clearness, and it is unnecessary, therefore, for me to describe the, purposes to which the fund is applied. The general character of its application is, undoubtedly, to facilitate and remove the friction from the working of the system of purchase. That is a correct description of the objects of the appropriation; and assuming that the War Department and Horse Guards act with good faith in the application of the fund, it is then for this House to consider how far they wish that that system should be facilitated. Those persons who are generally hostile to the purchase system with regard to military commissions would no doubt be unwilling to see any facilities given to the working of that system. On the other hand, those persons who may be on principle, favourable to that system, or who may he of opinion that, as it exists and is the law of the country, its working ought to be rendered easy, would desire the maintenance of the fund, always assuming that it was administered with honesty and discretion. It does not appear that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman impugns the administration of the fund, but he says that serious objections may be urged to the manner in which it was: created. Well, he certainly allowed that the question is, at all events, open to consideration. I confess that that part of the case has never been fully presented to me before, and I have learned much as to the objections which, I admit, may, with a fair show of reason, be made to many points connected with the creation of the fund. As the right hon. Gentleman brought for ward this question upon going into Committee of Supply, it was not incumbent upon him to propose any specific alterations. He has called the attention of the House fully to the subject; he has had an opportunity of laying his views before them, and I can only undertake, on the part of the Government, that the arguments which he has urged shall receive careful consideration.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he thought that the House was very much indebted to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for the lucid and able manner in which he had brought forward a very intricate subject. The Committee which had considered the matter included several ex-Secretaries of War, but nobody seemed to know anything about it. In point of fact, the "Reserve

  987
  Fund" was not the proper name for the fund; it ought to be called "A Fund for the Extension of the Purchase System." One point was clearly explained by the right hon. and gallant General. Some years ago the War Office were alarmed lest certain cavalry regiments should be without cornets, the fact being that those regiments were so expensive that parents would not place their sons in them. The War Office thought the cornets could be provided by a system of the sort, which was in fact levying a contribution upon officers in the mass for the purpose of introducing cornets into the cavalry. The Secretary for War now said that the effect of the fund was to remove friction from the purchase system. That was a new phrase; but the case made out by the right hon. and gallant General was so strong that it would be impossible to permit a continuance of the present practice. It was not merely the equitable distribution of the fund which was in question, but the serious precedent which it established. It was an entirely new principle that a fund should be created and distributed according to the pleasure of the Executive, and such a principle was one which the House ought not to sanction.
  LORD HOTHAMsaid, he had been much disappointed by the answer of the Secretary for War, and the entire absence of any explanation upon the subject under notice. That only convinced him the more that the same unwillingness to explain the nature and the application of the Reserve Fund still existed which had formerly been shown. On three different occasions he had sought unsuccessfully for information. On the first occasion the late lamented Lord Herbert said that the subject was about to be brought before a Royal Commission, and that therefore it would be better to wait. In another Session he was told that the matter was actually under inquiry; and on the next occasion that it had been inquired into, and that a Report would shortly be made. Last year a Return which he moved for as to the disposition of the fund was granted, but it gave little information on some points on which information was most required. The Secretary for War seemed to think that nobody objected to the application of the fund; but he (Lord Hotham) strongly objected to some of the purposes to which it was devoted, such, for example, as the application of a considerable proportion to the purchase of the commissions of members of Her Majesty's household.
  988
  That might be a desirable object, but it ought not to be effected through the instrumentality of that fund. It appeared that part of the fund was used to buy up commissions in the Corps of Yeomen of the Guard and Gentlemen at Arms. That nominations of deserving officer should be made to these corps by the Secretary for War or any responsible authority might be desirable enough, but they constantly saw announcements that the Queen, on the nomination of Lord Foley, had been pleased to appoint such and such officers to commissions in those corps. On that ground he objected to the fund. Another ground on which he objected to it was the entire secrecy with which it was managed. It was contrary to constitutional usage that a Minister should have at his disposal a large sum of money of which he gave no account. He also objected to the indiscriminate sale of commissions which had been introduced. According to the plan followed out by the Secretary of War, there was no reason why there should not be a system of competition for the purchase of commissions, and that the commissions should be knocked down to the highest bidder. He objected, also, to the allowance of;£100 a year to which his right hon. and gallant Friend had alluded two or three times, It was perfectly monstrous the great injustice which the system perpetrated. Reference had been made to the case of lieutenants. He would direct attention to the case of officers holding the rank of captain. Suppose two captains of the same regiment who had entered the army on the same day and had passed a term of eighteen years of equally meritorious service — suppose that one had purchased all his commissions, the other had been so fortunate as to obtain all his without purchase—now, if both those officers, who had entered the army on the same day, quitted it on the same day, the officer who had obtained his commissions without purchase would receive £1,800 as a bonus for his services, while the captain who had purchased his commissions would only receive back the sum he had paid, £1,800, and nothing more, besides having been liable to have his life cut short, with the entire loss of the money to his family. Could it be just to give one man such a bonus for his services and nothing to another, whose service was of the same length? It was a system in which some alteration was required. He hoped the House of Commons would not lose sight of the working of the system, and that the

  989
  right hon. Gentleman would inform the House fully of the course he intended to pursue for the future. He trusted that some alteration would be proposed to do away with the inconsistency and injustice of the existing practice.

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS.—QUESTION
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of the Treasury, For some information with regard to an item in the last financial accounts presented to the House. He would not have troubled the right hon. Gentleman had he not already sought for information from the best financial authorities on his own side of the House, and failed to obtain it. There appeared, both on the debit and credit side of the account, the following entry:— "To balance due from Messrs. Duncan and Hutchinson, £2,212." He had compared all the financial accounts for eleven or twelve years buck, and found the same entry in them; he supposed, therefore, that the money had been due to the State for more than eleven years, and had never yet been received. In the thirty-ninth report of the Woods and Forests he found the same sum entered as an "available balance;" and some time ago there appeared a note in the accounts stating that Messrs. Duncan and Hutchinson were "late receivers at Glasgow ' Would the Secretary of the Treasury ex plain the nature of the entry?
MR. PEELsaid, he had had no notice of the Question.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUstated, he would repeat his Question on Friday.

INDIA—THE LOCAL ARMIES

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether officers of the local Armies of India are liable to be removed against their consent from the regiments to which they belong, and to be sent to any station for the performance of general duty; whether compensation will be granted to officers so taken from their regiments and sent to general duty for the loss of regimental, troop, or company command allowances whether compensation will be given; to officers who have subscribed to Regimental Retiring Funds, in the full confidence of their subscriptions being returned; to them on their own retirement; and; whether the East India Company's late; European Artillery and Engineers have be
  990
  come integral portions of the Royal regiments of Artillery and Engineers respectively, with the advantages of seniority, succession, augmentation, &c.? With respect to the first question, it would appear that the conversion of regular regiments of the Indian local armies into irregulars, annihilated the regimental rights of an officer. Recent instances of officers who had returned to India from furlough had come to his knowledge, being told by the Adjutant General when application was made to be ordered to join their regiments, that they had no regiments; that they existed on paper only, and that they must go to general duty. On remonstrating that they had served from their youth with their own regiments, that they had friendships with the officers and sympathies with the men, the reply was that their regiments were converted into irregulars, with a limited number of officers, and that they were not required, and they must go to general duty. He (Colonel Sykes) could not believe that such injustice was contemplated by his right hon. Friend in his changes in the Indian armies. The second part of his question was whether any compensation would be granted to officers so taken from their duty. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the House did not guarantee allowances, hut only the gradations of rank. The clause in the Act, however, which referred to pensions and allowances, provided that the allowances should be maintained; and the officers prevented from joining their own regiments lost their troop and company allowances contrary to the guarantees of the House. With regard to the Regimental Retiring Funds, a practice had prevailed for many years of junior officers making a purse in order to upset their seniors, and that practice had been permitted by the Court of Directors. The officers who had not retired when the amalgamation of the Royal and Indian armies took place lost the large sum which they would have received on their own retirement under the old system, and he wanted to know whether the Government would give them some compensation? His fourth question needed no explanation.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the interpretation which his hon. and gallant Friend had put upon the guarantee given by the House would prevent any reduction whatever in the Indian army. Orders had been given to reduce several of the native regiments, and therefore the officers who

  991
  had no longer command of companies were not entitled to the allowances due to officers in command to cover certain expenses, His hon. and gallant Friend was one of those who most pressed upon the Government and the House the necessity of reducing the expenses of India, The great source of expense was the military expenditure; and if regiments were to be kept up merely in order that captains might hate allowances For being in command of companies, reduction would be impossible. The effect of the interpretation which the hon. and gallant Gentleman put upon the words of the Act would be this—that until the youngest cadet had gone through all the grades and received the allowances due to each grade, as they stood before reduction was contemplated, no reduction of the Indian army could take place. Perhaps to the proposition, put in plain terms like those, his hon. and gallant Friend himself would object. Some Indian regiments had been reduced. What was to become of the officers? said his hon. and gallant Friend. Well, what became of the officers of the English army when a reduction took place? They were put upon half-pay. But to Indian officers whose regiments were reduced, the same pay and promotion was given as if their regiments were in existence. In answer to the first question of his hon. and gallant Friend, he had to say that in the Indian army, as in the case of the English army and the English navy, every officer was bound to serve under his superior authorities wherever they thought it best for the public service he should be employed. In answer to the second question, he must say that he was not prepared to give compensation to officers who had ceased to have the command of companies. But the pay and promotion of these officers remained utterly unchanged. They would be promoted as rapidly and would receive the same pay as they received when in command. The next question was somewhat difficult to answer. The House had always been told that one of the great merits of the Indian army was that there was no purchase in it; but it now turned out that in every portion of the Indian army there was a system of purchase different from that in the English army, but just as illegal and irregular. In fact the substantial injury to the Indian army of which its officers complained, would arise from their being deprived of the benefit of that system of
  992
  purchase which they disdained. No doubt, a certain loss would be entailed upon Some Indian officers by the extinction of an irregular and illegal system of purchase; but the Government had endeavoured to mitigate the evil by liberal offers of retirement. With regard to the last question, the Bengal, Madras, and Bombay Artillery had become as it were a part of the Royal Artillery, and no change was made in the pay, promotion^ and pensions.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, that as to purchase in the Indian army being illegal, it was sanctioned by a minute of the Indian Council. It was perfectly right not to give allowances for expenses out of pocket to captains of companies who had ceased to hold commands. But the Government might consider the propriety of increasing the amount of bonus on retirement to certain officers who had passed the best part of their lives in the service.
  SIR CHARLES WOODexplained, that purchase in the Indian army had been declared illegal by a court of law, but he was aware it was as common as payments in excess of the regulation price of commissions in this country.
  COLONEL SYKESinsisted that purchase was legalized by the order of 29th of November, 1837.
  Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
House in Committee.
MR. MASSEY in the chair.
(1.) £450, New Consular Offices, &c, Constantinople, agreed to.
(2.) £2,500, Westminster Bridge Approaches.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he was surprised that any further sum should be required, seeing that £173,000 had already been granted, and that a large balance remained unexpended.
MR. COWPERsaid, that the balance had been reduced to £65,000, which would quickly be exhausted.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he understood that the Vote of £173,000 passed last year was to include all charges for the approaches to the bridge. As the gross sum already expended upon the work up to the 31st of December, 1861, was £54,748, there ought to be a balance remaining of £118,252. He did not see why the additional Vote was necessary.
MR. COWPERexplained, that the term "approaches" last year referred to the

993
roadway. The present Vote was required for the stairs and wing-walls, and other works not included in the original Estimate. As to the balance in hand, he could only say that it did not exceed £65,000; and that when all the demands of the householders had been satisfied, it would be reduced to nil.
MR. AYRTONasked, whether it was intended to carry out a suggestion which had been made of carrying a subway under the existing road, for the convenience of Members of Parliament and others landing from the steamers. He understood that the opinion of the engineer of the bridge was favourable to the construction of such a subway.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would remind the First Commissioner that hon. Members could not now get to the House without much inconvenience and even risk to their limbs.
MR. COWPERsaid, that a tunnel under the existing road was not part of the original plan, and he feared it could not now be made without considerable expense. Perhaps the object of the hon. Member could be accomplished when the embankment should be constructed.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the embankment of the river was not to extend beyond the east side of Westminster Bridge. He believed the subway could he constructed in a very simple manner.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he would call attention to the fact that there was already a doorway in the structure of the bridge; and although he could not precisely tell what purpose it served, or where it led to, yet it was to be presumed from the fact that there was a hollow under the bridge. Well, if people could go in by that door under the bridge for one purpose, they could go in for another, and therefore a ready means was afforded of overcoming the difficulty and meeting the suggestions of his hon. Friend.
MR. CHILDERSwished to know whether the present Vote would be wholly expended before the 31st of March next.
MR. COWPERsaid, there was no doubt that the whole of the money voted by Parliament would be ultimately required, although it might not all be paid away before the 3lst of March next?
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he must protest against that breach of the arrangement upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid such stress, that no money was to
994
be voted on the Civil Service Estimates which was not required within the year.
MR. COWPERsaid, that it was intended that the sum of £2,500 should be spent within the current financial year. There was a sum voted last year which might not be so expended, but he thought that it would be inexpedient to take from the Government the power of spending it if an opportunity were offered of settling with any of these leaseholders.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that after this explanation he should not oppose the Vote.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman the exact amount the Government had in hand?
MR. COWPERreplied, that there was a sum of £65,000 in the Exchequer, but that might be diminished to morrow or next day.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to forget that the whole of the sums hitherto voted wore unexpended; and that the balances now in the Exchequer for the purpose were £118,000.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £1,231 Westminster New Bridge, agreed to.
(4.) £15,000 New Foreign Office.
MR. AYRTONasked, whether the sum of £200,000, at which the cost of erecting the Foreign Office was fixed in the Vote, was a guess estimate, or whether it was an amount which had been settled by careful and deliberate inquiry, and within which it was intended that the cost of this building should be kept; and also whether steps were being taken for carrying out any particular design.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to know what kind of stone was to he used. He trusted it would not be a stone which would turn into sand, like that of the Houses of Parliament?
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, that he intended on the following evening to call attention to the general question of our public buildings, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would postpone the Vote until after the discussion of that subject had taken place.
MR. COWPERsaid, he did not see that the voting of the sum of £15,000, in addition to the £60,000 voted last year, would alter the position of the House towards the Motion of the hon. Member, and he could not consent to postpone the Vote. The estimate of £200,000 was made

995
by Mr. Scott, the architect, deliberately, and upon his responsibility. The estimate which would be most satisfactory to the Government and to the House would be that for which contractors would tender to complete the work. Mr. Scott was preparing working drawings and specifications, and in order to secure the completion of the work for a certain sum he intended to make a definite contract without reserving to the architect power to make alterations which might increase the expense. The design according to which the building would be erected was that which was exhibited last year, and met with general favour. Regarding the stone to be used, he thought the report of the Commission which had examined the stone of the Houses of Parliament showed that it would not be wise to use that description of stone; and it was intended to employ Portland stone, the material of which St. Paul's Cathedral and many other of the public buildings were constructed.
SIR MORTON PETOremarked, that the quarries in that part of the Island of Portland from which the stone for St. Paul's Cathedral was taken had been scarcely worked since that period, and there were at present various portions of stone intended for St. Paul's which had never been used. That stone was much harder than any other Stone in the island. In the time of Sir Christopher Wren the architects were good geologists, and care was then exercised, which had not been exercised since, in the selection of materials. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to have pledged himself that the plan should not be altered, and in that case a satisfactory result might be obtained. But unless the right hon. Gentleman set his face against any alterations he would be continually asked to change the plans according to the whims of the individuals for whom the offices were required.
SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEsaid, he wished to know whether the architect was to be paid five per cent on the cost, or whether he was to receive a fixed sum?
MR. WHITEremarked that he was not satisfied with a random estimate of a couple of hundred thousand pounds, and lie hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give a distinct and categorical statement that the probable expenditure on the Foreign Office would not exceed that sum. They ought not to imitate the example of despotic countries in lodging our public servants in public palaces.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he wished to know upon what data Mr. Scott proceeded, in returning the estimate for the Foreign Office at £200,000. Unless the architect knew the material which would be used in the building, his estimate must be of, little worth. To work a hard stone like Portland must be very expensive, and that item must enter into any correct estimate.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he held, that as the style of the building was to be Grecian, the point raised by the hon. Member was not of as great importance as it would have been had the style been mediœval, as there were only round columns to be worked, instead of statues and armorial bearings. Seeing how well Somerset House and St. Paul's Cathedral had stood, there ought to be little difficulty in selecting the proper stone.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, it was not his intention to convey that there would be any difficulty in obtaining suitable stone. His only object was to warn the First Commissioner of the necessity for proper precaution in the selection of the stone in the Island of Portland, the stone in one part of the island being of a very inferior description. He trusted that the House would agree with him that a hard stone ought to be used. In that, as in many other things, the first expense was the least.
MR. WHALLEYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had taken into consideration the opinions of the Commission of scientific gentlemen appointed to investigate the qualities of stone fitted for the Foreign Office.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he wished to remind the Committee of the opinion expressed by the Committee of which Mr. Laing was a member, against the system of balances which when, drawn into the Exchequer might be paid out again for any purpose foreign from that for which they had been originally voted. He should be glad to discover the purpose for which the Vote of £15,000 under consideration was demanded. It appeared from the Estimates that though the sum of £30,000 had been voted last year, and the sum of £20,000 the year before, for the Foreign Office, only £3,100 had been expended of the entire amount. For what object, then, could the additional sum be required?
MR. AYRTONsaid, he wanted to ask whether the £200,000, when expended, would make the new Foreign Office fit for occupation, or whether that amount would merely cover the architectural work on the

997
shell of the building? He condemned the system of presenting the Estimates by small instalments. The circumstances ought all to be fairly stated, and a sum taken that would enable the work to proceed energetically.
MR. W. WILLIAMSobserved, that he did not see why that money was required. Orders had been given to Mr. Scott to make the necessary preparations for the contract, but until the contract was entered into, the right hon. Gentleman could hare no need for the Vote. He also wished to know in what way the £3,100 said to have been already expended in connection with the building had been laid out?
MR. COWPERsaid, it had been thought better to divide the contracts, and to intrust the foundation to one contractor and the superstructure to another. The former contract had already been entered into, and the work was in progress; but the difficulties in the way of laying the foundations were great. It was necessary to sink to a depth of eighteen feet, in order to get a solid basis, and that portion of the work would, therefore, cost about £20,000. Matters were nearly ready for entering into a contract with regard to the superstructure, and the sum proposed to be voted was as much as was likely to be required in the course of the financial year. He would remind the Committee that when a building of the kind was once commenced it was very desirable on economical and other grounds to push it forward rapidly. He did not remember the passage alluded to by the noblo Lord (Lord R. Montagu), but he believed balances in the Exchequer were at least as safe and well looked after as money anywhere else. Certainly, he had never heard of any instance where they had been improperly disposed of. The Committee was perfectly safe in voting the money now asked for, as it was appropriated to that particular purpose, and if not applied before the 31st March next, would then be returned to the general fund, and the department would cease to exercise any control over it. Mr. Scott's estimate was one made in the ordinary way for a building with fittings, but not with furniture, It had been made on plans very carefully prepared in reference to the amount of accommodation required; but of course he could not pledge himself that the amount of £200,000 would be adhered to exactly. An estimate differed from an account, and it depended on the price of the labour market, on the
998
amount of competition for the contract, and on many other circumstances which it was impossible to foretell. But there was no reasonable ground for supposing that the estimate was erroneous, and he did not know that they could have a better authority to rely on than an architect of Mr. Gilbert Scott's ability and eminence. Happily there had been one good result of the long delay which had occurred; the plan had been so carefully gone into and examined that he did not think any alterations were likely to be required. An opportunity of expressing its opinion had been afforded to the department, and it had declared itself satisfied with the arrangements. He should consider it his duty to provide that the contract should be made in gross—a security which, if it had been adopted in the case of the Houses of Parliament, would have prevented much of the expenditure. There could not be a Jess effective control than that of Parliamentary Committees. If the architect had been responsible to any member of the Government, he would not have been able to make such arrangements as those which had led to the various alterations; but his masters were so numerous that, in reality, he had no master at all. When the Committee of the House of Commons expressed an opinion with respect to the works, the architect elicited from the Committee of the House of Lords another opinion. With regard to the stone, he thought they had so much light thrown on the subject by the Report of the Commission which was then on the table, that it was not probable they would fall into the same mistakes as had been made on former occasions. It was quite clear that no stone ought to be used which would be affected by the sulphurous acids in the atmosphere of London. Portland stone had stood the effects of this atmosphere; and it would be the duty of the architect of the new Foreign Office to take care that the best sort of stone for the purpose was taken out of the Portland Quarry. There might be other stones, such as silicious sandstone, which would have advantages as regarded durability; but the labour required in cutting them would greatly enhance the cost of the building. Mr. Scott, he might add, had prepared his estimate on the assumption that Portland stone would be used.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to say one word on the subject of cash balances, not particularly with re-

999
ference to the Vote under consideration only, but with reference to all the Votes; and, perhaps, the Secretary to the Treasury would tell them whether all the Votes were framed upon the same principle as the one before them. That was the first year of the new system. The previous practice had been to take Votes for the service of the year; and if any portion was not expended within the year, then the balance was in each case held over, as applicable to the same service in any future year; and that led to large balances in the Exchequer, and the system was open to abuse. Now, it was understood that Votes were taken for payments to be made in the course of the year, and if the money were not expended by the 31st of March next, then the balance remaining would certainly be surrendered. There was no doubt about that, but there was a doubt as to the surplus which existed on the 31st of March last; and it would certainly have been more convenient in many respects if the large surplus amounts in hand on the 31st of March last had been surrendered, and full Votes taken for all the money intended to be spent during the present year. That, however, had not been done; and whilst he supposed that it was intended to spend the whole £65,000 during the year, he wanted to know whether, if the whole of that sum were not spent, the balance upon that amount, and not that simply upon the sum voted this year, would be handed over? He wished to ask whether all the Votes were to be taken upon the same principle. He was afraid that one of the effects of the change was to make the Estimates for the year 1862–3 appear less than they really were. That, however, could not be helped, for it was very desirable to make such a change as that now introduced; but he thought the Estimates would appear much larger next year, in consequence of the new system.
MR. PEELsaid, that no doubt the balance to be handed over at the end of the financial year would be any sum which remained unexpended, whether it accrued from the sum voted in that or in previous years. That year the balances remaining in hand were very much smaller than they had been in previous years, and the whole sum deducted from the Estimates on that account was only 50,000. As to the particular Vote before the Committee, the Government had been informed, that though there was a large balance in hand, yet that the sum actually spent in the
1000
year would be more than the whole amount of the balance; and it was expected that it would be about equal to that and the amount now proposed to be voted.
MR. WHITEsaid, he was not satisfied with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner. It was quite clear that the system of undefined expenditure was still being pursued with reference to the proposed new building. He believed that before the Foreign Office was completed the sum of £200,000 would be only about one-half of the total amount which would have to be expended. He should have been much better satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman had said that £200,000 and no more should be appropriated to this purpose. He did not think the answer of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of the stone satisfactory, or that there was any more guarantee for their obtaining the right quality than there had been in the case of the New Houses of Parliament. In that case a scientific commission had given an opinion as to the best stone for the purpose, but, either from parsimony or ignorance, the proper means had not been adopted for providing that only the best stone should be selected, although be believed a competent person might have been employed on the spot to watch the selection at an expense of not more than £300 a year.
Vote agreed to; as were the following:—
(5.) £1,250 Temporary Foreign Office.
(6.) £10,000 Industrial Museum, Edinburgh.
(7.) £903, Aberdeen University.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, there was a balance of £3,000 on the Vote of 1859–60, and of £6,870 on the Vote of 1861–2, both of which sums were unexpended and available for the present year. He wished to know why a Vote of £327 was required that year for Marischal College?
MR. COWPERsaid, it was necessary to alter some of the class-rooms, and to provide further cases for the museum. The Moral Philosophy class-rooms were altered last year, and the present Vote was for the Botanical class-rooms.
Vote agreed to.
(8.) £10,000, Probate Court and Registries.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that he had been requested about two years ago by some gentlemen who wished to take notes

1001
and extracts from wills for antiquarian purposes to obtain a renewal of the privilege formerly allowed in the case of wills of ancient date. He had, however, Lien told by Mr. Laing, who was then Secretary to the Treasury, that from want of room it was not in the power of the officers of the Court to grant the facilities asked for. Three or four months ago, however, he saw by a paragraph in the newspapers that the privilege of making extracts from such wills could now be conceded to the public, and he was anxious on behalf of the gentlemen to whom he had alluded to ask whether the privilege which they requested could be granted to them?
MR. PEELsaid, there was no unwillingness to grant the desired accommodation, the only difficulty having arisen from the want of sufficient room in the promises occupied by the Registry of the Probate Court. On the recent enlargement of the premises, however, the judge of the Probate Court had made a rule permitting the public to consult and take notes of ancient wills under due regulations, and in the Estimates provision had been made for the necessary staff to assist the public in the search.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that a balance of £8,000 remained over from 1859–60, and a balance of £5,000 from 1860–1. He wished to know whether that balance had been all expended?
MR. COWPERsaid, there was at present a balance of £12,000 unexpended. There were forty district registries in various parts of the country, the rents of which amounted to £1,800, and the repairs to £1,000. Considerable works and repairs were necessary for the offices of the Probate Court in London. A house had been taken on a lease in Knight Rider Street to enable one provision of the Probate Act to be carried out—namely, that persons not of the legal profession should be enabled to go before the registrars and prove wills. The whole arrangement of the Probate Court and its offices was, however, unsatisfactory; because the buildings were but temporary. It was intended by the Courts of Justice, Bill to have provided permanently for the Probate Registry elsewhere; but the present rather inferior accommodation must now be continued. No more money, however, would be spent on the buildings in Doctors' Commons than would be absolutely necessary.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he
1002
wished to know what the entire expenditure during the present year would be?
MR. PEELsaid, that the sum available for the present year was £23,000. The cost of the Principal Registry of the Court of Probate and of the district registries in the country would be £7,800. The greater part of the district registries were leased by the. Government for five years, and these leases all contained a clause that the Government should have the power to purchase the premises at a certain sum. It was found by experience that in some of the towns it was advisable to build premises. It was proposed to purchase houses at Manchester, Chester, Lewes, Exeter, and Taunton, for which a sum of £5,600 would be wanted, and to build, during the coming year, registries at Manchester, Wakefield, and Oxford.
MR. NEWDKGATEsaid, he wished to inquire in what manner the fees connected with the court and its registries were applied, and if they were not available for the purposes of the Vote?
MR. PEELsaid, that the Treasury had the power to levy the fees by stamps. Provision was made last year to pay the officers by salaries instead of fees, and all the fees were carried to the Exchequer.
MR. FREELANDsaid, the Vote, as it appeared in the Estimates, was perfectly unintelligible; for the charges for rent, repairs, alterations, and a variety of other matters were lumped together without any detail whatever.
MR. COWPERsaid, he agreed it was always desirable to give as much information in detail as possible, but in that instance the arrangement of the balances rendered it impossible to give more than was given.
Vote agreed to.
(9.) £1,705 National Gallery (Increased Accommodation).
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he wished to ask for some explanation. If he recollected rightly, the noble Lord at the head of the Government and the Chief Commissioner of Works had stated that the sum of £15,000, which had been voted two years ago for the alterations and repairs in the National Gallery, would have been amply sufficient; and now £1,705 more was asked for.
MR. SLANEYsaid, he would suggest that upon one day of the week a trifling sum should be paid for admission in order to enable ladies to enjoy a visit to the

1003
National Gallery without suffering from the inconvenience arising from overcrowding. That plan was acted upon in the case of the Kensington Museum and of galleries abroad, and had been approved by the late Mr. Hume when it had been suggested some years ago.
MR. COWPERsaid, he regretted very much that it should be necessary to ask the Committee for any money in addition to the original Vote. The fact was, Mr. Pennethorne's estimate had been made in February of last year, and the Vote was taken at the end of August. It was necessary that the work should be completed before the opening of the Academy Exhibition on the 1st of May, and very little time was consequently disposable for the alterations. According to the practice of the office, nothing could be done until after the Vote was passed, and when the Vote was passed it was too late to make such specification as was requisite for a contract in gross. In order that the work might be done in time, it was necessary to have it done by day-work, and not only that, but it was carried on by candle-light. A great increase of the cost had been caused in consequence of the long hours of work and the difficulties of the season, which was very inclement. Mr. Pennethorne had made several improvements in details as regarded the staircases and the entrance, and had thus obtained more space for hanging the pictures. He had also given satisfactory reasons why the actual cost had exceeded the estimate presented to the Government. If the Vote had passed at as early a period last year as the present, he believed that the excess might have been avoided. As it happened, however, the matter was beyond the control of the Government, for they did not know that there would be an excess until the work had been completed, and the expenditure already incurred. The estimate of £15,000 which Mr. Pennethorne had sent in was the closest that he could make at the time.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he had not the slightest objection to the payment of those who had worked overtime, but he wished to point out that the Vote had been asked in 1860, at a time when only a section of the House, known as the "Janissaries" of the Government, remained behind. When the hon. Member for Surrey and himself objected that the Vote was an under-estimate, they were met by the Chief Commissioner of Works and by the
1004
noble Viscount with a jocose "Pooh, pooh!" They were told they knew nothing about the matter, and the Vote was passed in 1860; but in 1861 it was not known that the estimate was exceeded. He objected to its having been concealed from the public that the work should have cost nearly £2,000 more than had been originally asked. The sum was a trifling one, but the whole thing was an example of the manner in which the House was treated in such matters.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) £2,500 National Gallery, Dublin.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, they had been informed last year that the total estimate for the work was £24,000; £19,000 had been already voted, and £5,000 had been paid towards its erection out of the Dargan Fund. He should therefore like to know on what grounds they were now asked for £2,500 additional?
MR. PEELsaid, the building had been erected by trustees named under Act of Parliament, and they, not the Government, were responsible for an excess. It had been estimated that the building would be completed for £24,000, but in the beginning of the year a representation had been made to the Government that £26,500 would be required. He regretted that such was the case but he might add that the building was finished, and was admirably adapted for its purpose.
Vote agreed to.
(11.) £78,000 Harbours of Refuge.
MR. PEELsaid, as some hon. Gentleman might be taken by surprise if the Vote were taken that night, and one hon. Member who was not present had given notice of an Amendment, he, would if it were for the convenience of the Committee consent to the Vote being postponed.
MR. AYRTONwould suggest that before going on with the Vote the engineers' report should be before the Committee.
Vote postponed.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum not exceeding £101,221, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for Works and Expenses at the New Packet Harbour and Harbour of Refuge at Holyhead, and Portpatrick Harbour."
MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, he wished for some information as to what was proposed to be done with the packet pier at Holyhead. A very large sum, it would be remembered, had been voted for the packet

1005
service between London and Dublin. Certain arrangements had been entered into. The Dublin Steam Packet Company and the London and North Western Railway had completed their part of the contract, and put on some very fine vessels at a great expense, but the Government had done nothing whatever. He believed that none of the improvements promised by the Government had been carried out, and he wished to know what was now proposed to be done.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that a most extraordinary deception had been practised on the House with regard to the Holyhead Harbour. The first estimate of Mr. Rendel amounted to little more than £800,000; and now the estimated cost of the works reached within a small amount of £2,000,000. He wished to know whether the last sum would be sufficient to complete the harbour, which, he was told, would never be a proper harbour of refuge after all?
MR. PEELobserved that the subject of pier accomodation in Holyhead harbour had been a source of difficulty and embarrassment to the Government, who, though they might not appear to have proceeded with all the desired alacrity, nevertheless had done as much as it was: in their power to do. Some years ago it; was thought that the harbour would be used not only by vessels passing between England and Ireland, but by Transatlantic steamers, and permanent stone piers were proposed to be built in a position to allow vessels of any size to go alongside of thorn. A plan was accordingly prepared which I would have cost £500,000. It was approved by the House of Commons, a Vote on account was taken, and a contract was entered into, though within a month afterwards notice was given to the contractor not to proceed under it. Since then circumstances had altered. It was found that no Transatlantic steamers went to Holyhead harbour; the captains of nil the Dublin Steam Packet Company's steamers preferred the position of the temporary pier to that assigned for the permanent stone piers, and the professional officers of the Admiralty suggested that vessels lying alongside the latter might in certain states of weather be exposed to risk. Under those circumstances the Government came to the conclusion that it would not be desirable to complete the permanent stone piers, and turned their attention to see what might be done elsewhere for the convenience of
1006
the postal and passenger service to Ireland. With respect to the passengers, the complaint was that they were not provided with shelter in embarking in and disembarking from the steamboats; and, upon communicating with the engineer of the harbour, it was suggested that the temporary wooden pier should be so strengthened as to be able to support a roof, which would remove the objections made to the present arrangements, as far as concerned the convenience of the passengers. With regard to the contract with the North Western Railway Company and the Dublin Steam Packet Company, he wished to remind the Committee that that contract was entered into in 1859, and that under it a payment of £100,000 and upwards was to he made for the conveyance of the mails from London to Kingstown in eleven hours, a penalty of 36 s. being provided for every minute of overtime. The penalty, however, was to be held in abeyance until the Government found then ecessary pier accommodation of the character, contemplated at that period. The packet company preferred the position of the present wooden pier; but as that pier was not sufficiently strong, it had been proposed to strengthen it, and also to give some shelter from the direction of the north, without providing a breakwater, which was thought to be immediately. It was anticipated that the strengthening of the pier cost £10,000, and provision was made Vote for that particular service. With respect to the railway company, what they complained of chiefly was the sharpness of the curve between their station at Holy-head and the pier; and the engineer of the harbour suggested that the curve might be reduced by filling in a portion of the harbour, and laying down a line in a straighter direction. The cost would be £20,000, and that expenditure was also included in the present Estimate; but the Government before incurring that additional outlay, thought it necessary to stipulate with the two companies that they should consent to the re-establishment of the penalties for overtime. The Dublin Steam Packet Company demurred, but he believed that upon full consideration of the matter there would be no difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory arrangement with respect to the sea part of the service. The North Western Railway Company made great objection to the exaction of any fine for overtime, and to the abandonment of

1007
the proposal for permanent stone piers, stating that their motive for entering into the contract was not so much for the sake of their portion of the subsidy, as because they anticipated an increase to their general traffic upon the completion of the permanent piers. Such was the present state of the question; but he did not think it would be necessary to deal with the companies conjointly. It would be necessary, however, to have further correspondence with them, and he trusted that it would result in their both agreeing to the arrangements proposed by the Government.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, that the Vote before the Committee was only another of the numerous instances of an enormous excess of expenditure over the original estimate. As the hon. Gentleman had truly said the Estimate for the harbour was at first only £800,000, whereas the cost, together with that of the extension works, was put down then at £1,198,000. Whenever such an objectionable proceeding occurred, the Government must be blameable. In a neighbouring country, where there was a responsible Minister of Public Works, nothing of the kind was known; and there would be no amendment in this country of the evil of which he complained until the House had appointed a really responsible Minister of Public Works. For the last sixteen years he had been in connection with that functionary; and he must say that nothing could exceed the searching and comprehensive manner in which the business of the department was transacted. In the present case, however, the work had been intrusted to the Admiralty; but he did not believe that that office had any suitable machinery for conducting works of this description. Unless they had a properly responsible department to undertake such matters, the House would never have the slightest guarantee that any Estimate presented to them would be really sufficient.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that in point of fact the Admiralty never had any estimates of any kind submitted to it. The engineer on the spot repotted that so many hundred tons of stone had been thrown into the sea, and then the Controller of the Navy wrote a cheque for so much money. He might refer to the evidence of Colonel Greene to show that no sufficient check was exercised over the expenditure. It appeared to him that there was a clerical error in the Estimates, and he
1008
would therefore move to reduce the Vote by the amount—namely, £2,219.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £98,923, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for Works and Expenses at the New Packet Harbour and Harbour of Refuge at Holyhead, and Portpatrick Harbour."
MR. PEELexplained, that the error pointed out by the noble Lord merely reduced the apparent balance, and that it had no bearing upon the actual Vote.
MR. H. A. HERBERTremarked, that there were unforeseen circumstances connected with Holyhead, the very success of the scheme having led to the harbour being made a harbour of refuge, and an immense addition to the expense was thereby rendered necessary. He believed there was no manner in which money could be more humanely or more advantageously expended than in constructing harbours of refuge. He crossed the Channel eight or nine times a year, and he was able to bear testimony that in bad weather the harbour was literally crammed with vessels which had run in for refuge.
MR. BRADYsaid, he was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman's statement, for he had always heard the harbour described as entirely useless. He would ask whether there was not some difficulty in taking anchor in the harbour, owing to the rocky nature of the bottom? He advised the Committee not to vote another farthing for Holyhead until further information was obtained.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he thought some misconceptions prevailed with regard to the circumstances of this harbour. He could undertake to say that the impression which appeared to have been formed by the hon. Member (Mr. Brady) was quite erroneous. There was excellent holding ground in the harbour, and that was almost the only merit it had. The only way in which he could account for the impression was, that in some parts of the harbour some shingly ballast had been thrown down, over which the anchors of ships sometimes slipped. But he was surprised to hear his right hon. Friend (Mr. Herbert) say that the harbour at Holyhead had been so useful that it was found necessary to add to it. The origin of the case was this. Some years ago it was admitted on all hands that a harbour of refuge at Holyhead was necessary; but in order to gratify the econo-

1009
mical freak of the moment, a very inadequate sum was asked for, and thus it was afterwards found necessary to grant a large additional sum to make the harbour some thing like what it ought to be. As originally constructed it was quite useless except for small coasting vessels, and the northern pier had to be extended in order to give shelter to large ships. Another noticeable point was, that while Parliament had spent about £1,000,000 in constructing a harbour of refuge at Holyhead, it was still found necessary to use the old harbour, which the new one was meant to supersede. The packets all used the old harbour, and, in fact, the Government ignored the existence of the now harbour altogether. When the Channel squadron was at Holyhead two years ago, the vessels could not go into the now harbour, but were obliged to bring up under the extended breakwater, outside the harbour as originally constructed. The amount of the first or cheap Vote was £800,000; and now, after £390,000 over and above the money originally expended had been voted, another sum of £102,000 was asked for. He hoped the Committee would learn from the case of the Holyhead harbour a lesson not to trust to Estimates as an index of the ultimate cost of any scheme proposed by the Government. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to carry out a plan to utilize the new harbour for the purposes for which it was originally intended; or whether they intended to go on voting sums, wholly ignoring the existence of the new harbour, merely for the purpose of keeping up the old harbour.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he could not understand how hon. Gentlemen could have arrived at the conclusion that Holyhead was not a useful breakwater. He could assure the Committee that during the heavy gales of wind which took place in winter the harbour was, if anything, overcrowded with vessels. He therefore begged it to be understood that, as a refuge for the merchant service, Holyhead breakwater was a most useful work. He thought his lion. Friend (Mr, Bentinck) did not quite understand what the Government proposed to do with regard to the piers. The breakwater at Holyhead, which was planned some eighteen or twenty years ago, was originally intended to accommodate a much smaller class of vessels than those which now used it; and it was only when it was completed up to a certain point it was found that there were
1010
not sufficient capabilities for the wants of the public. Hence the extension of the pier, making breakwater behind which line-of-battle ships could ride with perfect safety, as was proved by several vessels of the Channel squadron some years ago. The Government were spending money on the old harbour because they wanted to complete the communication with Ireland within the shortest possible period. It had been suggested that the packets might use the breakwater, but the construction of a railroad along that work would cost more than to make the existing small harbour thoroughly available for the steampacket service. He had every reason to believe that the present Estimate would not be exceeded, and he hoped the House would agree to it. His right hon. Friend had stated with great clearness the facts precisely as they stood. The Government had given the whole subject mature consideration, and the manager of the Dublin Steam Packet Company and several of the captains of their steamboats had been called upon to attend at the Admiralty to give their opinion as to what was wanting. They all concurred in this—that the erection of a costly stone pier would be disadvantageous rather than advantageous to them; they preferred, infinitely, that the Admiralty should make the present a substantial pier, that they should be enabled to bring their steamers alongside at all times, that their vessels should have shelter within it, that it should he covered over, and that a refreshment room, with certain other conveniences, should be erected. With that accommodation they would be perfectly satisfied. His own belief was that at the present time the companies had no justification for not keeping their time; and he trusted, with his right hon. Friend, that the penalties would be enforced. Delays had occurred, not always in consequence of any defective arrangements at the pier, but because the companies had been saving their fuel. He therefore hoped the Irish Members would support the Government in forcing the companies to keep their time. There remained only the question with the London and North Western Railway Company. That company, it appeared, thought that the stone pier as originally intended to be constructed would be of great advantage to them. If they thought it would be of advantage to them, why did they not expend their money in erecting it? The public could not be expected to provide funds to make piers

1011
for the benefit of the London and North Western Railway Company. They only proposed to provide accommodation for passengers to and from Ireland, not to improve the circumstances of the London and North Western Company. The Government would be prepared to put the present pier to rights, make it convenient to passengers, and lessen the curve on the line, so as to enable the London and North Western to bring their trains down to the pier without stopping at Holyhead station to change their engine, &c; thus saving a certain amount of time now lost at the station at Holyhead; and if the companies did not keep their time, the penalty would, he trusted, be enforced, in order to procure that extent of accommodation which the Irish Members and the public had a right to require at their hands.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, be did not wish it should be supposed that he had given an opinion to the effect that there was not good and secure anchorage in the outer harbour for ships of the line. On the contrary, he knew that six line-of-battle ships had brought up there. But when his noble Friend said that the necessity for. increased dimensions in the harbour arose from the increased dimensions of ships, he was fighting u most chivalrous battle for those who originally planned the works. The fact was, that the entrance was so small and so difficult of access in certain winds, that merchantmen, particularly crippled vessels, were unable to work into the harbour; so that it was virtually not a harbour of refuge at all. Hence the necessity of the greatly extended and most expensive works that had been projected since.
LORD FERMOYsaid, he had no interest, direct or indirect, in the London and North Western Railway Company or in the Dublin Steam Packet Company, but he felt a great personal interest in the attainment of this object, that the passage from London to Ireland should be made in a moderate time, conveniently, and in safety. Now he confessed he did not think, if the Government were very particular in exacting penalties, that the journey would be performed in safety. What was the state of the case? Formerly a great loss of time took place in the course of the passage between London and Dublin. An arrangement, however, had been made between the companies, and things had been placed on a better footing than formerly. The journey had been shortened immensely
1012
and it was done with safety. The Dublin, Steam Packet Company had put a number of boats on the station, unrivalled for comfort, regularity, and reasonable speed. The Government, before enforcing penalties, should show clean hands and perform their own part of the contract. The noble Lord had made a feeling appeal to the Irish Members; but, if these penalties were imposed, the result would be some day that one of the Dublin Company's boats would be driven under the water altogether; and if the Irish Members should then be crossing the Channel in her, perhaps the Government would not suffer much. The subsidy paid to the company was not so excessively liberal that they should be always called upon to drive the last half-mile at the top of their speed. If the company in all cases kept to the letter of the law, he was sure there would be a great waste of human life.
MR. PEELsaid, that he would remind the noble Lord that no penalties could be exacted from the company for over-time caused by storms or fogs.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he must apologize for again recurring to the question of the balances, but he was not quite satisfied with the explanation that had been given on that important and vexed question. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury said that a sum of about £50,000 would be applied out of the balances to the expenditure of the current year. It would appear that there were balances of a much larger amount than that. By the Vote under consideration he saw that on the 28th February last there were balances of £31,000, and running through the whole of these accounts the aggregate balances were £700,000 on the 28th of February, one month before the close of the financial year. It was not to be supposed that the whole of that Bum had been spent between the 28th of February and the 31st of March. Was there any portion of the £31,000 in the Exchequer on the 31st of March. Alluding to the first four Votes in the class before the Committee, the Secretary of the Treasury spoke of the surpluses on former grants. Those surpluses amounted to £55,000; but if there were any surplus on other Votes, then there had been larger balances than £55,000, which would come in aid of the services of the present year; and by the amount of those balances the amount they were going to expend during the year

1013
exceeded the sum they were asked to vote. If they had surrendered the whole of these balances on the 31st of March, and then taken a re-vote for all that was wanted for the services of the year, they would, he supposed, have had to take a Vote for a much larger amount than they were now about to do. It was very important that year, when the revenue and expenditure ran so very close upon each other, that they should know how the matter really stood. And, perhaps, the Secretary of the Treasury would explain whether he adhered to the statement that only £50,000 of the balances of last year would be applied to the services of the current year.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped they would receive a clear explanation on the question of the balances. It ought to be brought up as a distinct question, and he hoped that at no distant day it would be placed on some definite footing. Sometimes these balances were taken as a reduction of subsequent Votes; at other times they were surrendered into the Treasury, but no uniform rule was observed. The Treasury used the balances on separate Votes at their own discretion. Were these balances, he would ask, to he surrendered, and dealt with entirely on the same principle as was followed in the case of the Army and Navy Estimates?
MR. PEELsaid, that, whatever the real difficulties of the question were, they would settle themselves by the change of system which had been adopted in the Estimates for the present year, those Estimates being voted not for the services of the year, but for the payments within the year. Therefore, on the 31st of March next, whatever sums wore not actually disbursed for the services of the year would have to be surrendered into the Exchequer, and the same principle as applied to the Naval and Military Estimates would he adopted. They had stated in each Estimate the amount of the balances remaining on the 28th of February, 1862. Those balances were altogether much less than those of previous years, because for a long time past the Government had been gradually reducing them. The hon. Baronet opposite seemed to suppose that in consequence of the introduction of a change of system they would spend in the current year not only all the Votes of the present year, but all the balances of previous years. He himself anticipated nothing of the sort where had always been balances from previous years, which, added to the Votes of
1014
the current year, gave an opportunity of spending more than the Estimates of such current year. But it never happened that the actual expenditure within the year exceeded the Estimates for the year, and there was no reason to suppose that the expenditure of 1862–3 would exceed the Estimates of the year, although, no doubt, in the case of certain Votes, there were some balances available for expenditure, supposing that expenditure should be incurred in the present year.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he understood that the objectionable system would still continue as regarded the balances of previous years. As to the balance on the Vote under consideration of £31,000 on the 28th of February, supposing £21,000 of that amount wore still in hand, was it to be spent in the course of the year, with the £100,000; or, if not spent, was it to he surrendered, or to be held in the hands of the Treasury, applicable to any services for which it had been voted in former years?
MR. AYRTONsaid, he wanted to know whether it was intended to frame the Appropriation Act in such a manner as would put an end to the question. If the Appropriation Act were to he drawn in respect of the Civil Service supplies as for the military services, it would combine not only every balance, but each item would be surrendered at the end of the year. If all the balances, including old balances, were surrendered, the financial statement next year would present a better appearance by five millions.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he thought the Government were entitled to credit for taking steps to correct the Estimates for the Civil Service. It was not an easy task, but the Government had undertaken it, and the consequence was that matters were now in a transition state. He understood it to be the intention of the Government that at the end of the financial year all surpluses remaining over should be carried into the Exchequer, and that next year these Estimates should be placed upon the same footing as the Army and Navy Estimates.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(12.) £96,342 Public Works (Ireland.)
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that he wished to call attention to the fact that seventeen items of the Vote, making in all £66,000 related to buildings for the purposes of education in Ireland, and he would

1015
ask why those items were not included in the Vote to which they properly belonged —the Vote for education in Ireland.
MR. PEELsaid, the sums only amounted to £26,000, and they appeared in the Estimates of the Board of Works because it was thought convenient that the expenses of all the buildings under the superintendence of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland should be included in one Estimate.
MR. H, A. HERBERTsaid, he wished for some explanation of an item £376 for repairs at Howth Harbour, which he could not understand, as he believed that harbour had been given up.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, there was a sum £2,174 for furniture and fitments of Dublin Castle. As the abolition of the Lord-Lieutenancy had been once agreed to by the House, and would probably some day be carried out, he thought it unwise to expend money upon furniture.
MR. PEELexplained that the Vote was rendered necessary, in consequence of certain fittings upon the occasion of Her Majesty's visit to Ireland.
MR. CHILDERScould not understand the answer, as there was a balance of £38,000 applicable to the expenditure.
MR. PEELsaid, there was no authority to apply that balance.
Vote agreed to; as was also.
(13.) £5,000, New Record Buildings, Four Courts, Dublin.
(14.) £11,994, Light-houses Abroad.
MR. MOFFATTsaid, the Vote comprised a charge of £4,000 for light-houses at Ceylon and in Australia. Those lighthouses were for the benefit of trade in those places, and he could not see why those charges should be borne by the revenue of this country.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, it was of great importance to British trade that these lights should be maintained; and unless a grant for that purpose were made from Imperial sources, there would be no light-houses.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wanted to ask who was responsible for the lighthouse sent out for erection on the Basses Rocks near Ceylon? That light-house turned out a failure, and he did not know what had become of it. It had since been determined to send out a light-ship, to be moored close by; and he wished to know whether the Board of Trade were satisfied that the light-ship would be more successful than the light-house?
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the Board of Trade were responsible for advising the Treasury to sanction this expenditure. He was afraid that the outlay upon the light-house had been wasted. The engineeer employed had under-rated he difficulties of erecting a fixed light, and after a considerable expenditure the project had been abandoned. A new plan of lighting had been adopted, and those who were competent to form an opinion had no doubt it would be successful. He alluded to the placing of a floating lightship near the rocks. That light-ship would give intimation of these rocks to the passing trade. He hoped that the unfortunate endeavour to erect a fixed structure upon the rocks would be a warning to engineers not to attempt so hazardous an experiment in future.
Vote agreed to.
(15.) £5,000 Highland Roads and Bridges.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, it was high time that the Vote should be put and end to, and he should divide the Committee against it. Those Highland roads and bridges had been maintained by the State for considerably more than 100 years, and though there might have been a period when such an expenditure was necessary, it was quite unnecessary now, and the country ought not to be called upon for a Vote which was really for the benefit of the Scotch landed proprietors.
MR. CAVEregarded the Vote as a perfect anachronism, originating at a period when the Highlands were so unsafe that it was necessary to hold military possession of the district, and wondered that the Scotch Members themselves did not protest against it, as a libel upon their country. Nor was it really in the interest of the Highland proprietors, for one of these gentlemen had told him that the Government inspection was so costly a thing that they would rather not have the grant at all, as then they would be left to manage these roads themselves, which they would do at a much cheaper rate. This he could easily understand, as they had lately been informed that Government superintendence of roads in India cost 3d. for every shilling expended.
MR. PEELsaid, that all these roads had been constructed (wholly or partially) out of public money. The annual cost of maintaining them was £21,500, which was in part defrayed by the annual contribution, voted by the House, and in part by

1017
an assessment of equal amount upon the northern counties, the remainder being collected by tolls. Of course, it was quite open to the Committee to refuse their sanction to the Vote. Nothing would be lost, but the advantage of having these roads kept in order by a general Commission, instead of by the respective counties. But the Committee ought to know that the Government were not without some compensation for the grant. The mail carts were at present exempt, and he was informed that the tolls upon the Government conveyances would be,£2,500 a year. It should be borne in mind also that the Commissioners had power to increase the rate of toll. The saving, therefore, to be effected by rejecting the Vote would be very little. He hoped that the Committee would pass the Vote for the year. He would undertake that the subject should be fully inquired into, and would endeavour to effect some arrangement by which any future application would be unnecessary.
MR. WHITEsaid, he rose to protest against the Vote, and express a hope that it would be withdrawn. The Vote might have been necessary when the Scotch were semi-nude savages, but there was no place where the value of property had been so enhanced as in the Highlands of Scotland; and the time had now arrived when the expenditure on the roads there should be thrown on the districts through which they ran. He regretted to find that when ever there was a Commission, something more than superhuman energy was necessary to get rid of it.
MR. BRADYsaid, he thought the Vote ought not to have been proposed at all. The grant was one that would not be allowed in this country, and he should support the hon. Member if he divided the Committee upon it.
MAJOR HAMILTONsaid, he believed the Vote was really a saving to the country. In consequence of the grant the mails were free from tolls. A better system of management or more perfect roads could not be found. They were well described in the words of, he presumed, the Irish Gentleman, who said —
"Had you seen these roads before they were made,
"You would hold up your hands and bless General Wade."
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he thought the Committee ought not to attempt to cut off the grant by a surprise, in the absence of almost every Scotch Member.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, the Secre-
1018
tary for the Treasury had given the strongest argument against the continuance of the Vote. Any district which could command £2,500 a year by mail tolls ought to be in a position to maintain its own roads, and not come begging to the doors of the House of Commons.
MR. CAVEsaid, in reply to the Secretary of the Treasury, that mail carts were exempt from tolls in all Highways in England as well as Scotland, and that the opposition to the Vote could not be regarded as a surprise, since a similar discussion took place last year.
MR. BARROWsaid, he thought, as the, mails were earned on the roads for the convenience of the inhabitants of the district, tolls ought to be charged on those roads, as in every county in England.
MR. COWPERsaid, the expense of repairing these roads was formerly charged on the Consolidated Fund. That charge had by an Act of Parliament been transferred to the annual Estimates. A Commission was appointed to execute the repairs and administer the funds. That Commission would expire in 1865. He did not think the Committee would act wisely in suddenly withdrawing the grant. By doing so they might, perhaps, stop all communication, between different parts of the Highlands. It would certainly cause great inconvenience to the persons employed on the roads. He thought the Commission ought to be allowed to continue for the period allowed by law.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that on the 28th February, a balance of £5,000 remained in hand from the sum voted last year, so that the inconvenience would not be as great as was contemplated, if the Commitee, on full consideration of the subject, thought fit to reject the Vote.
MR. CAIRDsaid, speaking as a Scotchman, he thought a Vote of the kind did them little credit. Every year in a similar discussion the whole of Scotland was found fault with for asking an aid that was confined only to one district. A very large sum had been expended on these roads; so much the better for that part of the country; but surely it could now afford to undertake the expense itself. In no part of Great Britain had the rent of land more improved than in that district. After the very inadequate defence of the Vote they had heard, the sooner it was cancelled the better.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That a sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted

1019
to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for the Grant to the Commissioners of Highland Roads and Bridges."
The Committee divided:— Ayes 24; Noes 48: Majority 24.
The following Votes were then agreed to:—
(15.) £20,000, Local Assessments, Government Property.
(16.) £69,646, Salaries, &c. Houses of Parliament.
(17.) £52,363, Treasury.
(18.) £25,856, Home Office.
(19.) £64,319, Foreign Office.
(20.) £30,748, Colonial Office.
(21.) £20,566, Privy Council Office.
MR. W. WILLIAMS, said, he questioned the necessity of paying £1,500 a year for a medical adviser to the Privy Council.
MR. PEELsaid, the Privy Council had succeeded to the powers of the late Board of Health.
Vote agreed to; as was also.
(22.) £52,787, Board of Trade.
(23.) £2,760, Lord Privy Seal.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he should like to be informed what were the duties of the Lord Privy Seal.
MR. PEELsaid, that the Lord Privy Seal was a Member of the Cabinet, and it was of advantage to the Cabinet to have amongst their members a Minister whose time was not wholly employed with the duties of his own department. He did not think the sum proposed to be voted could be considered too much for the salary of a Cabinet Minister.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the duties were defined to be those of a Member of the Cabinet. How then, could the services of a chief clerk and assistant clerk be necessary?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that some years ago he was Member of a Commission which inquired into the office of Lord Privy Seal, and one question which arose was whether it was desirable that the office should be maintained. It could only be defended upon the ground that in a body in which the duties were so various as those of the Cabinet it was an advantage to have a person whose time was not entirely engrossed by the duties of a laborious department. At one time the Privy Seal was a high constitutional office, and it was an historical fact that the Lord Privy Seal had been Prime Minister of
1020
this country. Lord Chatham was Prime Minister at the time he was Lord Privy Seal. Every patent passed through the Privy Seal Office in order to reach the Great Seal, and there were duties of examination which it was utterly impossible for the Lord Privy Seal himself to discharge. It was necessary, therefore, that he should have some small clerical assistance. Formerly there were one or two sinecure offices—Clerks of the Signet. Those offices were abolished, and the staff was now reduced to the lowest possible point consistent with a discharge of the duties which he had mentioned.
MR. BRADYsaid, it appeared, then, that the Lord Privy Seal did little, and yet required clerks to assist him.
Vote agreed to; as were also.
(24.) £6,992, Civil Service Commission.
(25.) £19,800, Paymaster General's Office.
(26.) £6,565, Office of Comptroller General of the Exchequer.
(27.) £30,839, Office of Works and Public Buildings.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he desired to know how far the First Commissioner held himself responsible for works carried on through Votes of the House.
MR. COWPERreplied, that he deemed himself responsible for the expenditure of all money which Parliament placed at his disposal. He was never disposed to shrink from that responsibility.
MR. WHITEsaid, he wished to ask whether it was true, that notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) was at all times able to command the services of a most able solicitor as the regular permanent law agent of his department, he had found it necessary to call in the assistance of Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton, the solicitors of the Carlton Club, to aid him in passing the Thames Embankment Bill. A more respectable firm than that of these gentlemen did not exist; still it would be as well if it were made perfectly clear why it had become necessary to invoke such extra assistance.
MR. COWPERsaid, that the business on which the firm was engaged did not properly belong to his department. They were simply employed as Parliamentary agents in procuring the passing of a private Bill. As time pressed, and as Messrs. Baxter and Co. possessed special knowledge and experience in regard to the subject, through having conducted a somewhat si-

1021
milar measure, it was found convenient to employ them.
MR. AYRTONobserved, that he believed the right hon. Gentleman had not satisfactorily explained the matter. The question really was why, having so expensive a staff attached to the office, it had been necessary to call in the assistance of those gentlemen. He had no doubt as to the perfect wisdom of enrolling the aid of the Parliamentary agents of the Carlton Club upon such an occasion. No selection could have been more judicious, although it might involve some reflection upon professional gentlemen addicted to Liberal opinions. Still the question stood thus— the right lion. Gentleman said he employed Messrs. Baxter and Co. because the Bill had nothing to do with his department. Well, but if the Bill had nothing to do with his department, what had he to do with the Bill? The position of matters was most extraordinary. Time did not press with reference to the Thames embankment, for it had already waited during twenty years, and that got rid of the right hon. Gentleman's first excuse; while with regard to the second, that Messrs. Baxter and Co. had been employed because in a previous Session they had been the promoters of a similar Bill, so far from that justifying the appointment, it operated directly the other way, as, according to the ordinary rule, they were thereby disqualified from undertaking the conduct of a Bill for the public.
MR. COWPERexplained, that he had only followed the custom of the department, The issue of notices and other arduous duties connected with the passage of a Bill through Parliament did not form part of the regular business of the solicitor to the office. The work had to be performed in a short time, and as Messrs. Baxter and Co. had a large staff and every appliance for conducting the Bill, it was very natural that their services should be secured. It was most convenient to employ these gentlemen to give the notices for a Bill which would cover nearly the same ground as that of which they had previously had charge.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he was delighted to hear the eulogistic terms in which the Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton were spoken of. No doubt these gentlemen merited such a reference; but the right hon. Gentleman should recollect that they had introduced a Bill of an entirely different character from that introduced during the present Session with respect to the Thames
1022
embankment. In addition to being the agents of the Carlton Club, he believed Messrs. Baxter, Rose and Norton also enjoyed the confidence of the railway interest, and that their object was not to carry out an embankment scheme similar to that now before Parliament, but rather to form a Railway along the river from Westminster to Queenhithe. Now he did not wish to say anything harsh of Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton, but it had been suggested to him that they, having as it were surrendered their first line and taken to a second, had still a yearning after the first. That consideration had been pressed upon him by persons materially interested in the rejection of the plan. Certain sections of the Thames Embankment Bill were altogether inconsistent with the carrying out of such a scheme, although they were entirely consistent with the making of a railway in the vicinity of that House. His object was to put the right hon. Gentleman upon his guard, so that he might take care the Bill when it came out of Committee was practically the same as when it went into Committee. He must say the employment of these Gentlemen was very extraordinary. He had never heard of a solicitor objecting to carrying a Bill through Parliament, and no case had been made out for the employment of these Gentlemen as Parliamentary agents upon the present occasion. However, his main object was to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of seeing that Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton carried out his object, and not their own.
Vote agreed, to.
(28.) £26,138 Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues.
MR. CAIRDsaid, he wished to draw attention to the large sums which were not shown in this Vote, but which were annually paid to Mr. Clutton, of Whitehall place, as poundage and commission. That Gentleman received last year from that source about £10,000, while he was convinced that the work would be better performed by a responsible officer, whose services might be obtained for a salary of £800 or £1,000 per annum. He also wished to have some explanation of the large charge for solicitor's expenses in Scotland, which amounted to no less a sum than £2,200, while in Ireland, from which a large revenue was derived, they were only £250.
MR. PEELsaid, that when the hon. Gentleman complained of the sum paid to

1023
Mr. Clutton, lie ought not to leave out of sight the advantage which the country had obtained from employing the services of that gentleman. During the last nine years, during which time the Office of Woods had been separated from that of Works, a great part of the Crown property had been re-let and great improvements had been made principally by concentrations; and nine-tenths of the property which had been purchased or sold had been bought or sold on the recommendation of Mr. Chit ton. Those sales and purchases involved about one million of money, and while the Crown had purchased at twenty-nine years' purchase it had sold at thirty-six. Mr. Clutton collected for twenty-six counties, from which he received about £80,000. His allowance was four per cent, which would amount to a sum of about £3,200; but out of that he had to pay his travelling expenses and keep up his office. The sum received by that gentleman on the 31st of March, 1861, was £5,200, but it was possible that in previous years, when larger transactions had taken place, his receipts might have reached the amount stated by the hon. Member. Some years ago the Crown revenues of Scotland fell into great disorder, and the property did not produce more than £15,000 a year. Since then, by great exertions, the larger portion of the arrears had been recovered, and the revenues now amounted to£26,000, notwithstanding that considerable portions of the property had been sold in the interval. It was, of course, a question whether the officer charged with the management of these funds ought to be paid by salary or by fees, but it was considered better to pay him by fees, as a proportion was thereby maintained between the amount of work and the amount of pay.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought that the Government ought to submit to the Committee a statement of the whole charge in respect of the Woods and Forests Department, which figures, however, they had always refused, because they would show an enormous expenditure. Here was £160,000 for management of property producing £400,000 a year. As for asking for the paltry Vote of £26,000 from the House when the real cost was £160,000, it was absurd. It was said that it was Crown property, and could not be submitted to the investigation of the House But the Crown had surrendered it by Ac of Parliament to the public, and it received in return a civil list. If the Crown
1024
property were properly managed, the Crown would cost the country very little, for the revenues of the property would be almost sufficient to defray the whole expenses of he Crown; but the enormous outlay in the management of the property threw a corresponding burden on the civil list.
MR. CAIRDsaid, he did not dispute the ability with which these estates were managed, though on a former occasion he had alluded to the fact that the conversion of 1,900 acres of land in Essex involved an expenditure of £67,000. But, as the gentleman in question was employed not only by the Woods and Forests, but by the Treasury, the War Office, and almost every other Department as occasion arose, he thought it would be more economical to place him upon a salary, and to make him responsible for the advice which he gave. He believed that the true reason why the property had sold for thirty-six years' purchase was, because the public saw that it had been grossly underlet, and therefore that the rental was no criterion of its value.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the matter was easily explained. The lands sold were small detached lots, lying in the immediate neighbourhood of larger estates, and every one knew that the desire to possess land contiguous to their own, frequently induced persons to give for it more than its real market value.
Vote agreed to.
The following Votes were also agreed to:
(29.) £20,042, Public Records.
(30.) £226,123, Poor Laws.
(31.) £62,734, Mint.
(32.) £26,025, Inspectors of Factories and Mines.
(33.) £6,315, Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer (Scotland).
(34.) £6,431, Lord Lieutenant's Household (Ireland).
(35.) £16,535, Offices of Chief Secretary for Ireland.
(36.) £3,587, Office of Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums (Ireland).
(37.) £24,301, Board of Public Works (Ireland).
(38.) £32,931, Audit Office.
(39.) £19,818 Copyhold Enclosure and Tithe Commission.
MR. W. WILLIAMSobserved, that he did not think there was business for three Commissioners. Two had been able to get through the Tithe Commutation work, and that was at an end long ago.
MR. PEELsaid, he was informed that the business of the Commission was on the increase. By an Act of last Session the duties of the Commissioners had been made more onerous.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that nevertheless he did not think that any case had been made for the employment of three Commissioners.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would remind his hon. Friend that additional duties had been imposed on the Commissioners. They now, in fact, performed duties formerly done by five Commissioners. He did not believe less than three could do this duty.
SIR GEORGE LEWISremarked, that when he filled the office of Home Secretary a vacancy occurred by the death of one of the Commissioners; and, on inquiry, he found it to be the opinion of the other two that it was necessary to have the vacancy filled up.
LORD HOTHAMsaid, he could bear testimony to the satisfactory manner in which the Commissioners discharged their duties, and expressed his opinion that there was work enough for three.
Vote agreed to; as were also—
(40.) £12,090, Imprest Expenses under Inclosure and Drainage Acts.
(41.) £47,578, Departments of Registrars General of Births, &c.
(42.) £14,669, National Debt Office.
(43.) £4,120, Public Works Loan and West India Islands Relief Commissions.
(44.) £6,958, Office of Commissioners in Lunacy and Board of Lunacy in Scotland.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had to complain that the Lunacy Commissioners did not work with the county magistrates. Owing to the way in which the Commissioners conducted business, a lunatic asylum in South Wales, which was decided on years ago, had not been opened yet.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that instead of matters in dispute between the Lunacy Commissioners and the county magistrates being discussed by correspondence, it was desirable they should be settled in a personal conference, and this course had been taken in some cases with good results. He believed that some delay had been caused in Wales by the difficulty of obtaining an agreement between the different counties. He believed that generally the Commissioners were disposed to act in concert with the magistrates and the ratepayers.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, that nil the rate-
1026
payers were unanimously in favour of the erection of an asylum, but the Commissioners by their objections frustrated the ratepayers' intention.
Vote agreed to.
(45.) £1,223 Superintendent of County Roads, South Wales.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he could not understand why a charge of the kind should be made for South Wales, when it had been refused for Scotland. Recollecting that the toll-gates in South Wales had been abolished as the result of the "Rebecca Riots," he was at a loss to understand why the Government maintained a Superintendent of Roads.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the office was created under an Act of Parliament, and his hon. Friend must repeal that if he objected to the Vote.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, when the Rebecca Act was passed, a Loan was granted by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, by which the debt on the counties was at once paid off, and the repayment of the debt was distributed over a number of years. An annuity was charged on the county rate, or revenue of the six counties, and the object of the appointment of the Superintendent was the audit of the accounts of the turnpike roads of South Wales, for the purpose of seeing that the debt was punctually discharged.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—
(46.) £2,294, Office of Registrars of Friendly Societies.
(47.) £17,743, Charity Commission.
(48.) £6,955, Office under Local Government Act and Inspection of Burial Grounds.
(49.) £3,232, Agricultural and Emigration Statistics (Ireland).
(50.) £2,268, Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments, &c.
(51.) £3,044, Quarantine Expenses.
(52.) £32,000, Secret Services.
(53.) £342,049 Printing and Stationery.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that there was an item of £2,200 for Stationery for the Irish Constabulary, and a Vote in another class of £3,400 fur Stationery for the same body.
MR. PEELsaid, he had explained last year that the item in the present Vote was for Stationery supplied by Her Majesty's Stationery Office for the Constabulary Office in Dublin, while the other item was

1027
to cover allowances in lieu of stationery made to the subordinate officers of Constabulary in the country.
Vote agreed to; as were the following Votes:—
(54.) £115,580, Postage (Public Departments).
(55.) £30,510, Law Charges.
(56.) £167,678, Prosecutions at Assizes and Quarter Sessions.
(57.) £228,475, Police (Counties and Boroughs), and in Scotland.
(58.) £3,098, Crown Office, Queen's Bench.
(59.) £11,540, Admiralty Court, Dublin.
(60.) £5,501, Insolvent Debtors' Court.
(61.) £78,330, Courts of Probate, &c.
(62.) £165,000, County Courts.
(63.) £21.430, Police Courts (Metropolis).
(64.) £140,443, Metropolitan Police.
(65.) £3,564 Queen's Prison.
In reply to a question from Mr. WILLIAMS,
SIR GEORGE GREYwas understood to say that he should, on an early day, bring in a Bill authorizing the removal of this prison.
Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes: —
(66.) £18,092, Revising Barristers (England and Wales).
(67.) £3,675, Divorce Court Compensations.
(68.) £24,237, Bankruptcy Court Compensations.
(69.) £3,342, Lord Advocate and Solicitor General (Scotland).
(70.) £18,200, Court of Session (Scotland).
(71.) £11,076, Court of Justiciary (Scotland).
(72.) £5,000, Criminal Prosecutions (Scotland).
(73.) £1,620, Exchequer (Scotland).
(74.) £38,231, Sheriffs and Procurators Fiscal, &c. (Scotland).
(75.) £23,475, Procurators Fiscal Salaries (Scotland).
(76.) £14,330, Sheriff Clerks (Scotland).
(77.) £2,300, Tithes, &c. (Scotland).
(78.) £15,941, General Register House (Edinburgh).
(79.) £1,305, Commissary Clerk's Office (Edinburgh).
(80.) £1,490, Accountant in Bankruptcy (Scotland).
(81.) £61,134, Law Charges (Ireland).
(82.) £5,536, Court of Chancery (Ireland).
(83.) £19,052, Courts of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer (Ireland).
(84.) £5,932, Registrars to Judges, &c. (Ireland).
(85.) £2,000, Manor Courts (Ireland).
(86.) £2,314, Registration of Judgments (Ireland).
(87.) £300, High Court of Delegates (Ireland).
(88.) £6,893, Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Ireland).
(89.) £10,330, Court of Probate (Ireland).
(90.) £11,472, Landed Estates Court (Ireland).
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he understood that the Landed Estates Court was to have been self-supporting, and that there were even surplus funds belonging to it. He wanted to know, therefore, why a Vote of £11,472 was now asked?
MR. PEELsaid, the court was called self-supporting. Under a recent Act a certain duty was imposed upon sales effected in it; but that duty did not attach to any estates sold in the court at the time of the passing of the Act. The full amount, therefore, that would otherwise have been realized in the court had not accrued. The income of the court, however, had been diminished, for Parliament had thought proper to pass an Act last year which reduced the rate of duties chargeable in that court.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUinquired, whether the right hon. Gentleman could tell him what amount of duty had been received in the court. He understood that it had reached several thousand pounds.
MR. PEELsaid, the amount received during 1861 was £7,512, the whole of which had been taken into the Exchequer.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he must contend that it was unreasonable to ask for £4,000 to make up the deficiency. The court had done vast good to Ireland, and no money could be better laid out by the people of that country than in defraying the costs.
Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes: —
(91.) £1,150, Consolidated Office of Writs, Dublin.
(92.) £420, Revising Barristers, Dublin.
(93.) £50,600, Police Justices, Dublin.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £777,368, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for the Constabulary Force in Ireland."
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he rose to express a hope that the Vote would be postponed, He had given notice of a Motion in reference to the enormous increase which had taken place upon the Vote. In 1842, when Ireland was in a disturbed state, the whole expense of the police force was somewhere about £440,000, and in the present year, when they were told that everything was quiet, the Vote amounted to £777,000. He should be able to show that with this enormous increase of expenditure the efficiency of the police had greatly deteriorated. He did not mean to say anything against the police as a body of men. He was merely referring to the manner in which it was endeavoured to make them a military force instead of a police force. He relied, however, on a return which he had moved for two months ago, but had not yet received, and he therefore trusted that the Vote would be postponed.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he trusted that the hon. and gallant Member would make his Motion at once, and not ask for the postponement of the Vote. The Irish constabulary, so far from being an expensive body, were cheaper than the police force in this country or Scotland.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he found that the charge for the year was £80,000 more than in last year.
SIR ROBERT PEELexplained that that was principally owing to the alteration of the arm used by the constabulary.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, that that was the very reason why he found fault with the force. Formerly the men were supplied with a very useful weapon, but the Government had taken it away to give them the Enfield rifle. A policeman generally used his piece to knock down persons with the butt end of it; and it was therefore absurd to spend £40,000 in giving him a weapon so delicate, that the slighest touch would derange its sighting and render it useless. He also objected to the way the men were clothed—they were made, in fact, to resemble second-rate hussars.
SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, that though differing in some degree from what had fallen from his gallant Friend,
1030
and bearing testimony to the good conduct of the Irish constabulary, he thought that they had had too military a character given them. Not only had they been supplied with Enfield rifles, but a number of them had actually been sent to Hythe and taught to make bull's-eyes at a thousand yards. He was of opinion that the time had arrived for considering whether, instead arming the police with Enfield rifles, it would not be advisable to have a body of men who would be more useful as detectives.
SIR ROBERT PEELremarked, that every Government had maintained the necessity of giving to the Irish constabulary a military training; and with regard to their efficiency, he believed it to be as great as ever.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he was ready to admit that when the constabulary force was first instituted it was necessary to have a military man at the head to bring it to a certain degree of order and regularity; but the force was assuming a still greater military character, and he doubted the policy of making it keep up that character. He repeated that he did not mean to say that the constabulary as a body of men had deteriorated, but they had deteriorated in respect to the discovery of crime and the performance of police duties.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he understood the hon. and gallant Member objected to arming the constabulary with the Enfield rifle. Now, he could quite understand a person saying that they should not have firearms, but should be only armed like the police in London; but if they were to have firearms, surely they ought to have good ones. With respect to the general efficiency of the Irish constabulary, everybody seemed to be agreed. They constituted n most valuable force, performed their duties admirably, and not the loss so on account of the military instruction they received. If the hon. and gallant Member desired an opportunity of going at length into his objections, he would have one on the bringing up of the report.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he would admit that to a certain extent the constabulary should be armed with firearms, but lie should like to see a certain portion of them armed with another sort of weapon which they might use more freely. At any rate, it was absurd, when they had an arm suitable fur them as a police, to incur increased expenditure for the purpose of giving them the Enfield rifle. With regard to the de-

1031
terioration of the force in the discovery of offenders, he noticed that the Irish Judges had made remarks on the great number of crimes lately committed in Ireland as to the perpetrators of which no clue had been obtained. In his own county (Limerick) a learned Judge had pointed out that in the last year forty-eight of such cases had occurred. The learned Judge said, that the fault must lie in the magistrates, in the people or in the police. He (Colonel Dickson) did not admit that it was in the magistrates, or, to more than a certain extent, in the people. He should, under the circumstances, move that the Vote he reduced by the sum of £80,000.
MR. BRADYsaid, he was present when Baron Fitzgerald made similar remarks in the county of Leitrim to those the gallant Colonel had referred to. The truth was, an order had issued from the Castle at Dublin directing that every incident of a criminal nature should be reported by the police. The result had been the collection of a mass of crime which appeared to be perfectly horrible; but it turned out, on inquiry, that most of the things the police had set down were so trivial that they ought never to have been reported at all. It was generally considered in Ireland that the force had too military a character to be perfectly useful as police.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he was gratified at finding so many hon. Members express the opinions which he had always held, and which he had many years ago expressed. He confessed it shocked him to see the courts attended by men with guns and bayonets, for it appeared to him that that was the best way that could be devised of keeping up the idea amongst the people of Ireland, that their country was in the possession of a foreign power. Things had entirely changed since the constabulary was established, and the police might well now be armed as they were in England. The Irish constables lived together in their barracks, and seemed to consider themselves above their business as thief-takers.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to take that occasion to call attention to the item of £2,000 for extra expenses on account of elections. The sum could have relation only to the Longford election. He must express his surprise at the largeness of the amount.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, that the sum might be accounted for by the attendance of bands at the elections. He con-
1032
demned the profligate increase which had taken place of late years in this Vote.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the item had nothing to do with the bands, which were provided by the men themselves, nor had it any special reference to the Longford election. That election, no doubt, was a very expensive affair, but the sum of £2,000 was to cover contingencies at elections and other disturbances.
Motion made, and Question,
"That a sum, not exceeding £696,947, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for the Constabulary Force in Ireland,"
—put, and. negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
The two following Votes were then agreed to:—
(95.) £2,717, Four Courts, Marshalsea Prison, Dublin.
(96.) £17, 410, Inspection of Prisons.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £350,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for Government Prisons and Convict Establishments at Home."
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that there were many items in the Vote, and one might have been overlooked by some who would object to it. He referred to the item of £550 for the provision of religious instruction for Roman Catholics in convict prisons. A similar Vote was proposed in 1854 and rejected; and he was happy now to find, that although the Vote had been some time in print, no one had given notice of an objection to this item. About 14 per cent of the convicts in prisons in England were Roman Catholics, but there was no power to expend a single shilling in providing religious instruction for them. Facilities were given for the admission of religious instruction; but it was impossible to secure the regular attendance of unpaid Roman Catholic chaplains. In some cases the prisons were twelve miles from the residence of the priests. Under these circumstances he had felt it his duty to submit the item, believing that if hon. Members were consistent in the professions they made of a desire to see all persons placed on an equality, they ought to make some provision for the religious instruction of

1033
Roman Catholic convicts. Since the item was previously brought under their notice the House had repeatedly sanctioned a similar provision in the case of military prisons. Under those circumstances, he hoped hon. Members would feel that the Vote was one which they could sanction. In view of the care taken in Ireland to instruct the Protestants, who were the minority, it was indefensible to allow Roman Catholic prisoners in this country to remain without religious instruction.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, that he had not anticipated that the Vote would come on this evening, and therefore he had not given notice that he would call attention to it. The item to which attention had been called was small—only £550; hut it was one of others, which together formed a substantial endowment of the Roman Ca tholic system to the extent of £250,000 a year; and it involved a principle—namely, that if Roman Catholic Dissenters—for Roman Catholics were dissenters from the system of religion recognised by the Constitution of the country—were entitled to such provision, there was no reason win-other classes of Dissenters should not be similarly privileged. There was no other class of religionists of whom it could be said, as it was of the Roman Catholics, in the words of the Coronation Oath, that their religion was a system of idolatry and superstition. He did not use that term offensively; but it was a fact that under the Roman Catholic system in Ireland the cost of the police was increasing to an enormous extent. In 1846 it was little more than £400,000, and this year it was near £800,000. If £550 were given to Roman Catholics immured in prisons, how could the House resist the granting of a much larger sum to those Roman Catholics who had not violated the laws? No public advantage could be secured by en couraging the visits of priests to our prisons. He was prepared to prove that, as a general rule, the teaching of the Roman Catholic priests would be found at variance with the teaching of the laws. There was scarcely an offence for which a man could be imprisoned but that the priest could suggest such consolation as would encourage the prisoner to violate the law, and would defeat entirely the object of punishment. A priest who discharged his duty as a priest would tell a man that there were circumstances under which embezzlement or robbery from a master did not amount to criminal guilt, but were
1034
perfectly justifiable. [Question!] If questions arose as to appropriation of public monies for these purposes, they were bound to consider the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, and what it was the priests taught. Was the House willing to grant money to Roman Catholic priests to teach such a doctrine as this to prisoners?—"He does not steal who takes any just compensation if he cannot obtain what is due to him; for instance, if a servant cannot otherwise obtain his lawful wages, or is unjustly compelled to serve for an unjust remuneration." Here is another Roman Catholic doctrine— "An extremely poor man may steal what is necessary for the relief of his wants." That was not the common law of this country, for the vindication of which prisons were built. Here was another still more striking doctrine—" He who prevented another from stealing what he requires may be killed by such poor man." And, again—"If you are prepared to give false evidence against me by which I should receive sentence of death, and I have no other means of escape, it is lawful for me to kill you, since I should otherwise be killed myself." That very system was practically illustrated day after day in Italy and Spain, and they were called on to vote the means by which it should be inculcated among ourselves. In 1851 the Canon Law was introduced into this country, and the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was passed in order to repress it; yet the right hon. Baronet, who was connected with the Government who introduced that Bill, not content with its total failure, now came forward and asked £550 to assist the priests in giving effect to that Canon Law. His hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne) had given him emphatic warning not to indulge in those quotations, but there was one more he would offer to the House; it was this—" If you endeavour to ruin my reputation before men of dignified rank," such, he supposed, as Members of that House, "and I cannot avert that injury to my character unless I kill you, I may lawfully do so. Still, the calumniator should be first warned, that he may desist from his slanders "—as his hon. Friend had, no doubt, warned him— "and if lie will not desist he should be killed—not openly, on account of the slander, but secretly." Suppose, then, that having made these quotations, and received that warning, he went to Ireland and was shot; if his assailant was by mere chance

1035
secured, the priest might say he was undoubtedly justified in shooting his man; the only offence he committed was in not doing it secretly. There was no exaggeration in what he had stated. Such was the actual practical living doctrine inculcated by these priests to the full extent of their power, and he objected to giving it a Parliamentary imperial sanction by means of the Vote.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUwished to ask if any change had taken place in convict labour. The amount asked for transport service was twice what it was last year.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Government were providing altogether for 11,060 prisoners this year, or for about 1,500 in excess of the actual number. There was a balance of £100,000 in the Exchequer on that account, and the Estimate appeared considerably more than could possibly be expended during the year.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was sorry to say there had been some increase of crime during the last year, and the Estimate had been prepared after careful consideration. The prisons were inconveniently full, and it had been found impossible to remove many prisoners from the county gaols. No change had taken place with regard to convict labour.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he feared that the item of £1,820 for the maintenance of 100 Irish female convicts in refuges was only another means of encouraging establishments intended for exclusively Roman Catholic purposes. He should more that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £550, to which he had already referred.
Motion made, and Question,
"That the Item of £550, for Religious Instruction of Roman Catholic Prisoners in Convict Prisons in Great Britain, be omitted from the proposed Vote,"
—put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed, to.
(98.) £227,604, Maintenance of Prisoners in county gaols, &., agreed to.
(99.) £30,510, Transportation of Convicts.
In reply to a question from Mr. CHILDERS,
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that no convicts were sent to Bermuda last year, and none would be sent this year.
(100.) £142,683, Convict Establishment (Colonies), agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow;Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [4th April], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he should move that the Committee be deferred for six months. He regarded the Bill as a most extraordinary measure, especially after the great attention that had been paid in former years by distinguished men of all classes to the subject of a consolidation of the criminal law. Instead of a consolidating measure for the criminal law, he was surprised and disappointed at finding such a measure proposed, which was intended only to apply to Ireland.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"
—instead thereof.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he assured the hon. Member that the general feeling in Ireland was in favour of the Bill, and the Irish law officers were strongly in its favour. It had become necessary to change the law of last year by re-establishing in some form the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1851, and this Bill was thought to be the best mode of attaining that object.
MR. BRADYsaid, the Bill gave power to make an accusation upon suspicion, and threw upon the accused the burden of proving his innocence, a principle which would never be sanctioned for England. He could not admit that such a proposition would be popular in Ireland.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he would like to know if such a Bill would be tolerated in England. Clauses 4 and 5 appeared to be intended to punish poor persons for picking up fuel and sticks on the road, while Clause 6 threw the onus upon an individual suspected of a crime, of proving his innocence.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 4: Majority 40.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee.
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 (Stealing Trees).
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he objected to a provision which made the stealing of trees anywhere punishable. No such law existed in England.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, it was a re-enactment of the old law.
MR. BRADYsaid, he should oppose the clause. It was most unwise to have one law for Ireland and another for England,
MR. LOCKEobserved, that there was precisely the same law in England—the 24 & 25 Vict., c. 27, s. 22.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, the Act the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to applied to Ireland. There could be no necessity for re-enacting that Bill for Ireland.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he could not understand the object of re-enacting the law. He thought the Secretary for Ireland would do well either to withdraw the clause altogether, or to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALobserved that the clause was merely a re-enactment—a return to the state of the law which preceded the Consolidation Act of last session. With the exception of Clause 4, they were additional enactments; and if it were asked why there should be additional enactments for Ireland, the answer was, that these enactments were made to meet the circumstances of the country. With regard to Clause 4, there was this difference between the proposed clause and the law of England, that in England it must be declared on oath that the tree destroyed or stolen was of the value of one shilling, whereas that proof was not required in Ireland.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes "30; Noes 12: Majority 18.
Clause agreed to.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he would move that the Chairman report progress.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he must oppose the Motion.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought the result of the last two divisions showed the opinion of the House.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he thought the presence of forty-two Members only at that hour of the night (twenty-five minutes past one) showed that the sitting ought not to continue.
Motion made, and Question put, "Thai the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 35: Majority 37.
MR. BRADYsaid, he should then move that the Chairman leave the chair.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, it was impossible for the Government to resist the opposition to further progress to-night; but it was necessary to go on with the Bill.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he hoped the House would allow the question to be postponed till Thursday, when other Irish measures wore on the papers, and Irish landed Members would be present.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the Government was so far in the hands of its opponents, because, though there were but eight of them, they might defeat it by beating a retreat. The Government must therefore yield.
MR. BRADYsaid, he would withdraw the amendment.
House resumed. Committee report progress; to sit again on Thursday.
House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.